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
No, the DLC really is $7.
It's not $57, that's the game and the DLC.
Which is optional. And not required.
Did I ever tell you that I missed you. How could you leave me here to debate with myself?
[quote="Furism" post="7.154083.3719018"]That really is a stupid excuse made up by some developer. Saying that moving the player camp to another place makes the item in the chest disappear is like saying your character loses all his items when changing area.
You've seen the coding for Dragon Age? All of it? You know how every bit of code works?
It's just a friggin' inventory system, it's not like they are trying to simulate realistic water physics or create perfect path finding for the AI. They could have just copy+pasted most of the code for the player inventory, so this sounds more like they just forgot to do it.
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
No, the DLC really is $7.
It's not $57, that's the game and the DLC.
Which is optional. And not required.
what? you can get the dlc without the game? thats news to me but why would you do that?
Sevre90210: It's not meant to rip them off, it just does.
Yeah, $7 is really breaking the bank.
What's that, like...3 cups of coffee?
Ouch. How will you manage?
lets face it, a DLC package is pretty much a Patch, 7$ may not be a lot of money, but when it should be free, its a matter of principalities, not material goods.
There's a storage chest there? Shoot, up until now I've just been selling everything. I should probably pay it a visit - for the most part the sell everything approach works, but when it comes to the gifts those do tend to accumulate in the inventory.
It's just a friggin' inventory system, it's not like they are trying to simulate realistic water physics or create perfect path finding for the AI. They could have just copy+pasted most of the code for the player inventory, so this sounds more like they just forgot to do it.
Oh yes, this world renowned, 14 years old RPG development studio just 'forgot' to 'copy+paste' some code. Forgive me if I don't take your post seriously, I'm having trouble because it reeks of silly.
lets face it, a DLC package is pretty much a Patch, 7$ may not be a lot of money, but when it should be free, its a matter of principalities, not material goods.
Ah, but you're debating from the point that it should be free. I disagree. They put time, manpower and resources into this and - just like Pinnacle Station, Broken Steel or a CoD Map Pack, they need to somehow pay for that time spent.
The only thing that bothers me is that in my experience EA games idea of DLC usually falls within these lines. Make players pay for something that should have been in the game to start with or something that gives them such a big advantage that they're playing the game gimped without it. It's not a DLC problem, it's an EA problem.
I see, please point out the reason [for the day one launch dates] in the following paragraph:
snip
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.
It wasn't in that paragraph. It was the bolded section posted by a previous user:
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?
Those are the reasons Bioware gave for releasing the DLC on day one. You can either accept them, or go with your conspiracy theories.
I have asked several people with the game about the inventory system: not one of them has yet complained about a lack of space.
Mass Effect, Bioware's last RPG, didn't have storage chests, and ME had a limit to it's inventory space as well.
Mass Effect, Bioware's last RPG, didn't have storage chests, and ME had a limit to it's inventory space as well.
Only downside with ME's inventory system (speaking as 360 copy, dunno about the PC) was that to get rid of stuff you had to endlessly omni-gel things which took forever due to the constant "Are you sure you want to gel this stuff?" popups.
They could have fixed it with a "Gel All" button. That's all they needed and it would've been perfect.
Mass Effect, Bioware's last RPG, didn't have storage chests, and ME had a limit to it's inventory space as well.
Only downside with ME's inventory system (speaking as 360 copy, dunno about the PC) was that to get rid of stuff you had to endlessly omni-gel things which took forever due to the constant "Are you sure you want to gel this stuff?" popups.
They could have fixed it with a "Gel All" button. That's all they needed and it would've been perfect.
I sold everything, since gel was useless to me.
So I got like, a bazillion-gajillion credits, but I didn't need them, because I had the best equipment in the game by then.
Which reminds me, Bring Down The Sky is totally worth it, just because you can get some goddamn Quarian armor. Tali was getting KOed a little too often before that point for my tastes...
Mass Effect, Bioware's last RPG, didn't have storage chests, and ME had a limit to it's inventory space as well.
Only downside with ME's inventory system (speaking as 360 copy, dunno about the PC) was that to get rid of stuff you had to endlessly omni-gel things which took forever due to the constant "Are you sure you want to gel this stuff?" popups.
They could have fixed it with a "Gel All" button. That's all they needed and it would've been perfect.
I sold everything, since gel was useless to me.
So I got like, a bazillion-gajillion credits, but I didn't need them, because I had the best equipment in the game by then.
Which reminds me, Bring Down The Sky is totally worth it, just because you can get some goddamn Quarian armor. Tali was getting KOed a little too often before that point for my tastes...
I found Quarian Colossus IX in some random Malfunctioning Object. I had never even used Tali on that playthrough. It does, I think, highlight an issue with the Mass Effect random drop system in that you can find oodles of armour only usable by one character (any Krogan, Turian or Quarian armour goes here) even if you never actually used them in a single fight while your main team could still be using their starting armour simply because the RNG decided that you don't deserve any of this shit.
Also, my uni network neither lets me use Steam, nor Xbox Live - or any online games (beyond browser Flash games and the like) for that matter.
It annoys me to no end, especially since Steam won't boot without updating itself and it can't update without the ports opening meaning that even though I have L4D installed on my PC I can't bloody boot it up because Steam auto-closes itself when it realises it can't update.
Mass Effect, Bioware's last RPG, didn't have storage chests, and ME had a limit to it's inventory space as well.
Only downside with ME's inventory system (speaking as 360 copy, dunno about the PC) was that to get rid of stuff you had to endlessly omni-gel things which took forever due to the constant "Are you sure you want to gel this stuff?" popups.
They could have fixed it with a "Gel All" button. That's all they needed and it would've been perfect.
I sold everything, since gel was useless to me.
So I got like, a bazillion-gajillion credits, but I didn't need them, because I had the best equipment in the game by then.
Which reminds me, Bring Down The Sky is totally worth it, just because you can get some goddamn Quarian armor. Tali was getting KOed a little too often before that point for my tastes...
I found Quarian Colossus IX in some random Malfunctioning Object.
You lucky son of a gun. Quarian armor is the rarest kind in the game: I myself only found two suits total. I think Turian stuff comes after that, and Krogan is the most common non-human armor.
My uni network loves Steam and XBL, but hates Games For Windows Live. Quite the annoyance, especially given my recent purchase of Batman:AA for the PC...
Did you try uninstalling Steam and re-downloading it, maybe? Or try going through a router: that's how I temporarily managed to get GFWL to work here, by mooching off of someone else's wireless.
It's just a friggin' inventory system, it's not like they are trying to simulate realistic water physics or create perfect path finding for the AI. They could have just copy+pasted most of the code for the player inventory, so this sounds more like they just forgot to do it.
Oh yes, this world renowned, 14 years old RPG development studio just 'forgot' to 'copy+paste' some code. Forgive me if I don't take your post seriously, I'm having trouble because it reeks of silly.
Oh yes, this world renowned, 14 years old RPG development studio just can't make a simple inventory system. Forgive me if I don't take your post seriously, your retarded.
Amnestic: Because it was made after the game was finished.
So it's impossible to add the content in the game which wasn't released. What, did they make a vow or something that they wouldn't touch the finished game before the release?
Mass Effect, Bioware's last RPG, didn't have storage chests, and ME had a limit to it's inventory space as well.
Only downside with ME's inventory system (speaking as 360 copy, dunno about the PC) was that to get rid of stuff you had to endlessly omni-gel things which took forever due to the constant "Are you sure you want to gel this stuff?" popups.
They could have fixed it with a "Gel All" button. That's all they needed and it would've been perfect.
I think the inventory system is just the same on the PC which isn't a good thing, because it's designed for the Xbox, so on PC's it's very slow and unintuitive.
Amnestic: Because it was made after the game was finished.
So it's impossible to add the content in the game which wasn't released. What, did they make a vow or something that they wouldn't touch the finished game before the release?
Yes, actually. It's called a content deadline, after which point you are not allowed to add anything else, and you move on to optimisation and testing.
I see, please point out the reason [for the day one launch dates] in the following paragraph:
snip
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.
It wasn't in that paragraph. It was the bolded section posted by a previous user:
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?
Those are the reasons Bioware gave for releasing the DLC on day one. You can either accept them, or go with your conspiracy theories.
I have asked several people with the game about the inventory system: not one of them has yet complained about a lack of space.
Mass Effect, Bioware's last RPG, didn't have storage chests, and ME had a limit to it's inventory space as well.
If you've actually read that paragraph, they haven't given a reason at all. They've answered the question with a loaded question. Once again you can't seem to grasp that I'm not complaining about the inventory system I'm complaining about why should they make people pay for a storage chest rather than release it in a free content patch?
Amnestic: Because it was made after the game was finished.
So it's impossible to add the content in the game which wasn't released. What, did they make a vow or something that they wouldn't touch the finished game before the release?
Yes, actually. It's called a content deadline, after which point you are not allowed to add anything else, and you move on to optimisation and testing.
Amnestic: Because it was made after the game was finished.
So it's impossible to add the content in the game which wasn't released. What, did they make a vow or something that they wouldn't touch the finished game before the release?
Yes, actually. It's called a content deadline, after which point you are not allowed to add anything else, and you move on to optimisation and testing.
Is that when it's got it's ratings 'n stuff?
If you mean reviews, I do believe that the early copies sent to reviewers are the first ones that get optimised, but don't take my word on that.
It's just a friggin' inventory system, it's not like they are trying to simulate realistic water physics or create perfect path finding for the AI. They could have just copy+pasted most of the code for the player inventory, so this sounds more like they just forgot to do it.
Oh yes, this world renowned, 14 years old RPG development studio just 'forgot' to 'copy+paste' some code. Forgive me if I don't take your post seriously, I'm having trouble because it reeks of silly.
Oh yes, this world renowned, 14 years old RPG development studio just can't make a simple inventory system. Forgive me if I don't take your post seriously, your retarded.
Can't? Of course they can. Or did you miss the whole point of Watcher's Keep? They just chose not to because it would take too long and clearly wasn't a high priority on their list of things to put into the game before the deadline. They wanted to, they probably even had part of the code done, but they had to scrap it from the main game because that's what happens when you don't work on Blizzard/Valve Time(TM)
Didn't you read Virgil's post on page 1?
Edit: Also, 'your retarded'? By Thor, the irony in here is delicious.
DeathWyrmNexus: I am going to have to save up for this and the DLC. Damn...
The game itself with no DLC's is 60 freaking hours. It will probably take at least 1 or 2 weeks to finish the game unless you're going for a hardcore 3 day no sleep, no food playthrough.
So has you can see, there's more than enough content even without the DLC. Just get the DLC next month, no need to deprave yourself any more from the great experience that Dragon Age is.
EDIT: The official Dragon Age: Origins website says over 100 hours of gameplay. Really, just go for it.
Pretty much my pont of wiew, there is bond to be enough gameplay to stop you caring. But puuting a storage chest in DLC does seem to be pushing it.
It kind of strange that gamers feel ripped off when you get more than an hour per $ on just 1 playthrough of the vanilla game. Nowadays you rarely get 20 hours for a singleplayer campaign.
DA is a very good deal provided you like this game genre. You don't need the wardenskeep DLC to play DA.
veloper: It kind of strange that gamers feel ripped off when you get more than an hour per $ on just 1 playthrough of the vanilla game. Nowadays you rarely get 20 hours for a singleplayer campaign.
DA is a very good deal provided you like this game genre. You don't need the wardenskeep DLC to play DA.
QFT
seriously, people need to stop complaining about price when the game is as long as it is
Edit: Also, 'your retarded'? By Thor, the irony in here is delicious.
Anyway... the point is, whatever reason they chose to exclude the thing, it wasn't anything to do with the code.
I wouldn't normally pick up on you screwing up the your/you're error, but when placed next to an insult of my intelligence I just can't help myself.
Actually, it might have everything to do with the code - specifically how long it took to write, debug, perfect and troubleshoot in comparison to other things which had a higher priority.
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?
I don't really know to whom you are directing those comments, but in a fit of ego I'll assume it's me because I'm (as far as I've read) the only one who's said they won't buy the game because of the DLC.
It's not that I'm too cheap. I'd pay the seven bucks more if it came on disc, off a shelf at the local games store. But I don't buy digital-only copies of games unless it's totally unavoidable, and I sure as fuck am never paying money for digital-only add-ons or patches, AKA, "DLC". Specific to this game, I feel it would be incomplete without this specific add-on, and I won't buy a game to get half the experience. Ergo, no Dragon Age for me, unless they re-release a "Gold Edition" or something down the line, which includes all DLC on disc. I'm patient enough to wait for that.
They are lying, it's plain to see. Of course it was EA! It's always EA that does this kinda stuff, selling a half-complete game for full price, and then selling the rest of the game in tiny bits, disguised as DLC.
With Dragon Age Origins, I really believe Bioware had close to nothing to do with this player chest thing. But then why are they lying about it so boldfaced? The chest losing it's contents when the party camp changes? Bullshit! The dwarven vendor in camp always has the same wares to sell no matter how the camp changes, and it does remember what items you already bought and there is even a buyback function. The player chest is just the same, but without the actual paying for storage.
But! Even if I accept the fact, that they did not have enough time to finish that particular part, they said they intended it to be in the original game, just as the stone golem quest. They put the golem quest in for free, yet for some totally asinine reason, they put the player chest in the paying DLC. Just how stupid they think we are exactly? meh...
Dude, you win this entire thread right there. I totally forgot the subject upon reading that. Anyway, they can say what they want: if it smells like and acts like a nickel-and-dime scheme... And in today's society, you dont have to be sorry for your actions, just have to 'fake it' and everything blows away right? "No we didnt intend for this to happen! (Oh and by the way you can purchase additional points at our BioWare store, we'll even open a browser up for you")
How convenient. I dont like the nickel and dime scheme, its like some menu: $5 Extra armor $6.50 Extra armor (with stats) $7 New skill $8.50 New level cap
What happened to expansions? When you paid 1/2 the price of the original game for about 30-50% new conent? Thats when I feel like I'm getting my moneys worth. When I've paid for one COMPLETE game and then I pay for the extras. This DLC shit feels like you buy a stripped down new car then they make you buy a backseat, windshield wipers, floormats. Make a complete product FIRST, then worry about how you're going to get your extra monies...
Im reading more of these posts, you pro-DLC people, please answer this: If they ran out of time to add the DLC add ons before release of the official game, why do we now, conveniently, have it available to us ...for a small additional charge.
Car makers dont announce cars in march, then come september, tell you 'oh well we ran out of time for the automatic-transmission,suspension or bucket seats but we'll SELL it to you...for a small additional charge.
I dont think that poor time management on their part should result in a reduced product (or a 'pay me for what should be standard' ideology) on the customers part.
Or at the very LEAST, dont blatantly try to sell me shit ON DAY ONE, that should have been in my game, FROM DAY ONE.
If they ran out of time to add the DLC add ons before release of the official game, why do we now, conveniently, have it available to us ...for a small additional charge.
Because the game got finished and "locked" months and months ago, but wasn't released straight away? It's no huge secret that the PC version of Dragon Age got delayed by about half a year.
So what are the devs meant to do while the console version is getting ported/tested/locked?
And yes, BioWare is lying - the apple (Bio) doesnt fall far from the tree (EA). So if your backer is telling you to lie, you'll still get paid...guess what you do.
Did I ever tell you that I missed you. How could you leave me here to debate with myself?
/cries.