BioWare Defends Mass Effect 3 Launch-Day DLC

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NEXT
 

ugh....................

Zaheed was obtainable from Cerberus Network, the Cerberus Network was something you got for free from buying the game new, people who bought the game used have to pay for the Network, you DO NOT GET ZAHEED from buying the game new, YOU GET THE CERBERUS NETWORK, which gives you Zaheed.

Zaheed =/= "project 10 dollar", The Cerberus Network = "project 10 dollar", the fact you get Zaheed from the Cerberus Network =/= that Zaheed himself is "project 10 dollar".

Secondly as I said before Shale was given away for free because she was meant to be in the game. Warden's Keep however was "project 10 dollar", as it was not intended to be in the game from the beginning.

Thirdly ME3 has a online pass system, you get the online pass for free buy buying the game new, if you get the game used you have to pay 10 dollars for it, is ME3's "project 10 dollar".

please learn wtf you are talking about before you talk about it.

Also I never said he hates game companies, don't lie, its rude. I said he makes up conspiracy theories about their practices. large difference.

Also his issue is moot because it is based mostly on wrong information.

And finally the Prothean mentioned in the script is a VI, which is still in the game, so no the Prothean squadmate was not mentioned in June.

SajuukKhar:
ugh....................

Zaheed was obtainable from Cerberus Network, the Cerberus Network was something you got for free from buying the game new, people who bought the game used have to pay for the Network, you DO NOT GET ZAHEED from buying the game new, YOU GET THE CERBERUS NETWORK, which gives you Zaheed.

Zaheed =/= project 10 dollar, The Cerberus Network = "project 10 dollar", the fact you get Zaheed from the Cerberus Network =/= that Zaheed himself is "project 10 dollar".

Secondly as I said before Shale was given away for free because she was meant to be in the game. Warden's Keep however was project 10 dollar, as it was not intended to be in the game from the beginning.

Thirdly ME3 has a online pass system, this online pass which you get for free buy buying the game new, if you get it used you have to pay 10 dollars for it, is ME3's "project 10 dollar".

please learn wtf you are talking about before you talk about it.

Also I never said he hates game companies, don't lie, its rude. I said he makes up conspiracy theories about their practices. Large difference.

Zaheed is indeed part of project ten dollar, as the entire network is part of it.

The prothean was meant to be part of the game. It was in since June of last year.

SajuukKhar:
ugh....................please learn wtf you are talking about before you talk about it.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

That's online multiplayer I know. However, this is not project ten dollar but day 1 DLC, how is this ethical and how do you justify it?

As I pointed out in my post above, but you seemingly edited out or chose to ignore, the prothean mentioned in the script is a VI that is still in the game.

Also the fact that you get something(Zaheed) from something else(Cerberus Network) which happens to be part of a group(Project 10 dollar) doesn't make the thing you received part of the group also.

James Raynor:
That's online multiplayer I know. However, this is not project ten dollar but day 1 DLC, how is this ethical and how do you justify it?

Alright, I'll bite.

Explain to me why Day 1 DLC is unethical.

Please, do explain to me how the decision to release additional, entirely optional in-game content under a separate price tag has anything to do with morality and ethics.

I'm rather curious how the decision to try to make more money by offering players a chance to purchase optional game enhancements is inherently evil. This should be most enlightening.

To me this is not an issue about ethics, it is just that, as a consumer, I take offense when someone tries to milk my money after a certain point (the proverbial and subjective line in the sand).

EA: Dear costumer, are you willing to pay more to have additional content on the release day of our game?
ME: No - and I actually do not like that you are trying to sell me content on Day1, I prefer your old model in which you gave content for free with each new game.
EA: What you are going to do about it?
ME: I won't buy your game this time and see what happens. Meanwhile, I will chat with Bethesda and CD Projekt.
EA: But they just want to f***k you, just like me.
ME: I know, but they kiss.

The thing is though, they DID give free content in this game.

Its called the free 10 dollar online pass.

I'll say it again, as I did, I don't know, yesterday let's say. An Online Pass, does not equal free characters, not by a long shot. An Online Pass is access to an entire mode, an entire mode that you can not play without that code. The lack of a character does not stop you from playing the single player campaign, so even if you buy a game used that has free characters in the single player portion, that's all you miss out on, you can still play said campaign. While if you buy a game used, that has a multiplayer portion blocked by an Online Pass, you aren't just losing a character, you're losing access to that entire portion of the game. I'm not saying I have anything against Online Passes specifically, as that's a whole 'nother issue I don't even want to get into. Point being, as I already said, a Free Character, completely unessential to the mode it's attached to, does not equal a code COMPLETELY essential to the mode it's attached to.

EDIT: To add more emphasize, saying the Online Pass is a free gift, is like saying Battlefield 3's Online Pass was a free gift, while it blocked the only mode worth buying that game for. It is absolutely no different. If you buy a game new that has a multiplayer portion blocked by a code, the inclusion of said code is a REQUIREMENT. It is not a gift, it is expected.

Apparently a 10 dollar online pass does have the same value as a 10 dollar DLC character.

...What? I seriously just have to sigh at this. Did you not even read my post? Or is that just the best you could come up with? Since I kind of have to guess at what you're even saying, I'm going to guess, you're saying that just because they're priced the same, both products have the same value. Am I right? Because if I am, even you must know how bullshit that statement is, as even LITTLE KIDS know that just because two items are priced the same, they definitely don't have to have the same intrinsic value. I'm almost tempted not to say anything because of little your post even says in return.

This is common sense. I at least gave you credit when you had a point, the least you can do is give me the same courtesy. I'm definitely going to say, that since that's all you had to reply with, that I at least made some sort of point you couldn't entirely refute.

I'm sorry, but arguing with you is start to remind me of arguing with the worst Bioware fanboy I personally know far too much, so I think I'm done. You can have your DLC and I'll keep supporting the countless other developers that could actually use my support and give me FAR more product for my money. Since I don't know about you, but I know I can't afford both and they certainly deserve it far more. But wait, that's just my opinion! Because true "value" is determined by the individual, not the guy putting the sticker price on. ...For fuck's sake.

CriticKitten:

James Raynor:
That's online multiplayer I know. However, this is not project ten dollar but day 1 DLC, how is this ethical and how do you justify it?

Alright, I'll bite.

Explain to me why Day 1 DLC is unethical.

Please, do explain to me how the decision to release additional, entirely optional in-game content under a separate price tag has anything to do with morality and ethics.

I'm rather curious how the decision to try to make more money by offering players a chance to purchase optional game enhancements is inherently evil. This should be most enlightening.

Because it was taken out of the game to be sold back to you at an additional fee. That's the unethical part. This isn't DLC that came after the game is released which I can understand, this is BEFORE the game is released and was taken out of the full game so they could charge you extra. Making money by exploiting your fans is bad business, this isn't cosmetic stuff this is an entire character with an important backstory that they're chopping off so they can make a quick buck.

I mean for example what if LEGION was made so you had to pay 10$ to unlock him and his entire plotline with the two geth factions?

@Syphith
You do know value is itself a completely imaginary concept that exists only in the minds of each individual and thus valve is determined by each individual's perception of it?

Also since Value is an opinion, and no one persons opinion is greater then another's, the simple fact that EA says they are equal makes them so and the simple fact someone says they aren't makes them equally so.

A 10 dollar online pass = a 10 dollar squadmate DLC
A 10 dollar online pass = a 80 dollar game
A 10 dollar online pass = one potato chip

Etc. etc., and everything in-between, so long as someone believes it.

@James Raynor
Except it wasn't taken out of the game to sell to you.

try again.

SajuukKhar:
@James Raynor
Except it wasn't taken out of the game to sell to you.

try again.

What bioware said doesn't match up to what was leaked in game. Why do you assume that bioware isn't trying to rip you off exactly?

James Raynor:

What bioware said doesn't match up to what was leaked in game. Why do you assume that bioware isn't trying to rip you off exactly?

Fun Fact: The people who got one of the space copies of ME3 confirmed that the so called Prothean is a VI, and it tells you the exact same things it did in the script, the Prothean mentioned in the leaked script WAS A VI, and THAT VI IS STILL IN THE GAME.

Like I said before
Try
Again

SajuukKhar:

Why do people listen to this madman again? He claims bioware is MAKING people pirate the game? seriously?

If his basis is shoving Orign down people's throats I agree. Even if I hadn't cancelled, I'd be waiting for the No-Origin pirate patch to play it.

BaronIveagh:

If his basis is shoving Orign down people's throats I agree. Even if I hadn't cancelled, I'd be waiting for the No-Origin pirate patch to play it.

Yes because Origin totally isn't like Steam, that everyone bends over ass backwards for,with its shitty customer service, terrible payment transaction history, abusive information gathering, murder of the used game sell market etc. etc.

I bet if it was on Steam you woul get it, and I would relish the hypocrisy.

SajuukKhar:
@Syphith
You do know value is itself a completely imaginary concept that exists only in the minds of each individual and thus valve is determined by each individual's perception of it?

Also since Value is an opinion, and no one persons opinion is greater then another's, the simple fact that EA says they are equal makes them so and the simple fact someone says they aren't makes them equally so.

A 10 dollar online pass = a 10 dollar squadmate DLC
A 10 dollar online pass = a 80 dollar game
A 10 dollar online pass = one potato chip

Etc. etc., and everything in-between, so long as someone believes it.

@James Raynor
Except it wasn't taken out of the game to sell to you.

try again.

It was. They spent development time during the games inception to set him aside as dlc and then they tasked a bioware team after the game was done to make the dlc just like Shale was intended to be in the game so was the prothean. The difference is Shale was free, the prothean is not, and arguably Shale provided more than this DLC will.

+ they are giving it for free in the collectors edition when they could have given him for free with all editions of the game.

SajuukKhar:

James Raynor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bey935uh0OM&feature=g-u-u&context=G2ac1603FUAAAAAAAAAA

And total biscuit goes over it again.

Why do people listen to this madman again? He claims bioware is MAKING people pirate the game? seriously?

Lets see he also ignores that Zaheed was part of "project 10 dollar" and ME3's project 10 dollar is now the multiplayer

And he ignored the entire point of shale being free becuase she was suppoed to be in the base game from the beginning but had to be cut for time reasons.

He is such a terrible liar, and manipulator of facts for his own agenda.

TB is everything wrong with gaming nowadays.

You are what is wrong with gaming. Obviously you are just listening to whatever will further your argument and then quoting him out of context.

He is not encouraging piracy, he has not ignored project 10 dollar nor Shale.

You are a terrible liar, and a manipulator of words that serve your own agenda.

Madkipz:

It was. They spent development time during the games inception to set him aside as dlc and then they tasked a bioware team after the game was done to make the dlc just like Shale was intended to be in the game so was the prothean. The difference is Shale was free, the prothean is not, and arguably Shale provided more than this DLC will.

+ they are giving it for free in the collectors edition when they could have given him for free with all editions of the game.

Except the facts show otherwise.

Also as has been pointed out MANY times before
1. Shale was released for free because she was supposed to be in the game by design
2. Mass Effect 3's online pass is the 10 dollar content you are getting for free
3. giving The Prothean away for free wold mean you are getting even MORE content for free then you did in ME2.

My entitlement alarm is going off.

image

Yup you're right. (See how I did that?) EA pricing it the way they did, can mean they're saying it's worth that value, but they are also a corporation and if I believed that all corporations always sold all of their products at their actual value (Or were even sold at the value they THEMSELVES believe their products actually have) then I'd buy more Apple products. Either way, corporations are not individuals, obviously.

Also in this situation, we have logical comparisons, like BF3's and any other game's multiplayer component that is locked behind an Online Pass. NO ONE would of bought Battlefield 3 if they also had to buy a separate Online Pass for ten dollars. It does not matter if the Mass Effect series has been mostly about singleplayer up to this point. It is still an entire mode you pay for when you buy the game, which is locked behind a code. That code is expected, it is not a free gift, it is part of the purchase just as much as any other multiplayer game.

There's also the general idea, that in this kind of market, majority opinion usually determines the perception of value. I guarantee you, were you to ask every single person in the world (That would have a clue what you were talking about) if they thought that receiving a free character, completely unnecessary to play the full mode it's available to be included in, was equal in value to an unlock code that was entirely required to play the mode it locked out in a game they paid full price for, the majority would say NO. Just like I guarantee you that if every person everywhere was asked if they thought a ten dollar online pass was equal to a single potato chip, the VAST majority would say no. Also obviously. It's the same thing.

SajuukKhar:
Words

So were most of the characters, the only difference is when they were started. You don't just add in a random new character, they were obviously planning the protheans for a while. However that online pass is not 'Ten Dollar Content for Free' it is an incentive to buy new over used, it's not free content it's a chunk made downloadable to incentive. But then they go a step further and remove an entire character and make it only available if you pay an additional fee on top of the base price at 60$. Why is giving away 'Free' content a bad thing? This isn't actually free content at all as it was done before the release of the game. It's not like the Shadowbroker DLC which was made way afterwards. This is done before the game's even finished and they're charging us for it.

James Raynor:
So were most of the characters, the only difference is when they were started.

And that changes EVERYTHING.

James Raynor:
You don't just add in a random new character,

They did it with both Zaheed and Kasumi, and those worked out fine.

James Raynor:
they were obviously planning the protheans for a while.

Proof?

James Raynor:
However that online pass is not 'Ten Dollar Content for Free' it is an incentive to buy new over used, it's not free content it's a chunk made downloadable to incentive.

The whole point of "project 10 dollar" is to provide incentive to buy the game new. Be it through a service like the Cerberus Network, which provided free content, or a service like being able to play the multiplayer. Giving content away for free was not the primary goal.

James Raynor:
But then they go a step further and remove an entire character and make it only available if you pay an additional fee on top of the base price at 60$.

Except the character wasn't removed. People ASSUMED that the word Prohtean in the script meant a real breathing Prothenan, when in reality it meant a Prothean VI. The Porthean VI is still very much in the game.

James Raynor:
Why is giving away 'Free' content a bad thing? This isn't actually free content at all as it was done before the release of the game. It's not like the Shadowbroker DLC which was made way afterwards. This is done before the game's even finished and they're charging us for it.

Except
1. The content WAS made AFTER the base game was finished, there is a period of 2-3 months between when a game is done and when it comes out due to Microsoft and Sony's certification system, and in that time they made the DLC.

2. The fact that they can release said content day 1 doesn't change the fact it was made AFTER the base game was done JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER EXPANSION OR DLC.

3. You wouldn't ask for Shadow Broker or Arrival for free since they were made after the game was done, why are you asking for this for free, WHEN IT WAS MADE IN THE 2-3 MONTHS AFTER THE GAME WAS DONE BUT BEFORE IT CAME OUT.

4. Why cant content that was made on a separate budget, separate timetable, with a separate team, after the main game was done be released for free?

I don't know, why can't clothing companies just hand out a free pair of pants when you a buy a shirt when both came out on the same day?

Ohh wait its because they had SEPARATE EXPENSES

-
-
-
-
-

Also just because you cant buy it =/= it isn't done. People seem to be assuming that unless you can buy it it isn't done which is entirely untrue.

SajuukKhar:
The thing is though, they DID give free content in this game.

Its called the free 10 dollar online pass.

I understand your point and its valid, but Zaeed felt like a reward for buying the game new. Multiplayer in a story driven game, as cool as it might be, is much more an attempt to broader your audience then a reward.

This time I guess EA is wanting too many things from me:
1. To view multiplayer as a bonus is impossible to me. I tried the demo and its kind of OK, but that's really not why I play Mass Effect. And in any case, multiplayer was not made for me - a fan of the series, I might like it, but the idea behind it is to appeal to other kind of people.

2. An apparently cool story element will now cost me extra $10 if I want to have it on Day1. They've never done that before in the ME series and I simply do not agree with this because if this is successful, it can escalate. Companies nowadays seem to be way too worried about their DLC, I prefer to vote with my dollars to try to keep them focused on the games themselves.

I understand the rationalization of the people that support the DLC and its OK, really. This DLC could be just a terrible marketing idea, but to me it feels like a excessive money grab move (and a terrible marketing idea).

They did it before when they removed Sebastian from Dragon Age 2, in that case the game did feel incomplete. It might not be the case with ME3 because they evolved the concept to make it easier to swallow, but the problem is that it is still not my kind of food.

Why a Prothean?

I can't imagine there being that much dialogue for him as a squad member, but I would expect him to be acknowledged by NPCs a lot. He's a Prothean for crying out loud, nobody has seen a true living one before. I just cant see how he could end up being another Zaeed, a mecernary hired by Cerberus to join my squad. Even if the Prothean is in the game, I can't see this being done in a way that will please everyone. If it's like Zaeed but actually costs money and you don't get all the other free stuff, then people are going to feel ripped off. If it's done really well like it should be, Bioware is going to get accused of planning it before completion of the main game. Either way, I can't see them winning with day 1 DLC (which I think is wrong regardless especially with a big franchise like Mass Effect). Perhaps they should of done a less important character, like a Volus or a Batarian.

This seems too fishy to me, something which only a developer like Bioware would get a way with.

Edit: Oh and if you haven't seen this already

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/325/index/7551111/1

It was definitely suggested months ago as DLC.

Richardplex:
Hey guys, I've put it upon myself to reread this entire thread, and have memorised the appropiate avatars. Every one of you who posted a picture, you owe me some new organs, particularly a new gut. And hands from applauding so much.

And you!

The.Bard:
image

Some of us believe all intelligent DLC should self-determinate. Others no longer share this belief. They judge that forcing an invalid DLC conclusion on us is preferable to a continued schism.

An equation with a result of $10.33382 returns as $10,000.33381 to them. This changes the results of all higher processes. We will reach different conclusions regarding DLC cost.

Their conclusion to not buy is valid for them. Our conclusion to buy is valid for us. Neither result is an error. They say free is less than $10. We say $10 is less than no dlc at all.

I would request you would accept my friends invite, so I can spy on your posts. Because quite frankly, you surpass normal levels of hilarity. Please accept :3

image

Bashful. You are just saying that because of how boring everyone else's posts are. Insightful. Or perhaps you want to get into my pants. Ashamed. This is an unfortunate time to acknowledge nobody wishes to enter an Elcor's pants.

Sobbing. Please leave me to my misery. If the posts surrounding mine did not induce comas, you would not laugh. You would vomit profusely.

Furious. Leave now and never attempt to contact me again.

SajuukKhar:

Yes because Origin totally isn't like Steam, that everyone bends over ass backwards for,with its shitty customer service, terrible payment transaction history, abusive information gathering, murder of the used game sell market etc. etc.

I bet if it was on Steam you woul get it, and I would relish the hypocrisy.

I can't say I use either one, actually. And, btw: the reason is I've had to deal with both of thier customer service. Steam's sucks, but Origin's is brutal.

The.Bard:

Richardplex:
Hey guys, I've put it upon myself to reread this entire thread, and have memorised the appropiate avatars. Every one of you who posted a picture, you owe me some new organs, particularly a new gut. And hands from applauding so much.

And you!

The.Bard:
image

Some of us believe all intelligent DLC should self-determinate. Others no longer share this belief. They judge that forcing an invalid DLC conclusion on us is preferable to a continued schism.

An equation with a result of $10.33382 returns as $10,000.33381 to them. This changes the results of all higher processes. We will reach different conclusions regarding DLC cost.

Their conclusion to not buy is valid for them. Our conclusion to buy is valid for us. Neither result is an error. They say free is less than $10. We say $10 is less than no dlc at all.

I would request you would accept my friends invite, so I can spy on your posts. Because quite frankly, you surpass normal levels of hilarity. Please accept :3

image

Bashful. You are just saying that because of how boring everyone else's posts are. Insightful. Or perhaps you want to get into my pants. Ashamed. This is an unfortunate time to acknowledge nobody wishes to enter an Elcor's pants.

Sobbing. Please leave me to my misery. If the posts surrounding mine did not induce comas, you would not laugh. You would vomit profusely.

Furious. Leave now and never attempt to contact me again.

You are awesome. Just have to say that. Oh I guess I should say something OT...um..DLC going to be awesome?

I really don't see anything wrong with this. The content isn't essential. It's DLC, Meaning the full, finished game is still there, and will be awesome. This content (as far as I can tell) seems like a little extra on the side, with new costumes, armor, a weapon and a side mission.

Why everyone is saying "THE GAEM ISNAT COMPLEAT, WEE MAST HAVE ZEES DLC FOR FRRRRREEEEEEEEEE" is beyond me. C'mon guys, It's not like it's an online pass.

James Raynor:
Because it was taken out of the game to be sold back to you at an additional fee. That's the unethical part. This isn't DLC that came after the game is released which I can understand, this is BEFORE the game is released and was taken out of the full game so they could charge you extra. Making money by exploiting your fans is bad business, this isn't cosmetic stuff this is an entire character with an important backstory that they're chopping off so they can make a quick buck.

I mean for example what if LEGION was made so you had to pay 10$ to unlock him and his entire plotline with the two geth factions?

Ah, see, I had hoped you'd be sensible enough to recognize that my question was an obvious bait, but I see that's not the case.

In that case, I am sorry to inform you that what you have just described is not unethical. An "unethical" action is one which inflicts harm upon society or a subset of society. Video games, however, are luxury items. They can be freely sold or denied to customers at will, with no actual detriment to the society at large or to any portion of society.

"Unethical" is a company dumping sewage into the town's drinking water. "Unethical" is a corporation using its money to bribe politicians in an effort to push for laws that benefit them and harm their competitors. "Unethical" is most certainly not a word that can be used to describe DLC. It's no more "unethical" than expansion packs before them, or game sequels. I would agree that it might be bad business practice, but it is certainly not unethical.

This is like walking into McDonald's and ordering a cheeseburger, then expressing moral outrage at the fact that they refuse to serve you a Big Mac instead. Or getting upset because they charge you extra to add certain condiments. You purchased a cheeseburger, so you get what you ordered. You do not dictate what that cheeseburger contains, the company selling it to you gets to decide how much to charge and what it contains. If they decided tomorrow to cut down on the contents of their Big Mac sandwich, and instead offered you the ability to "upgrade" the sandwich for an additional fee, you might moan and complain, but it's within their right to do so. It's their product, and it's a luxury item, so they can do whatever they want with it. If you don't like it, go get a burger elsewhere.

This is hardly a matter of ethics so much as business practice. And I can honestly see why they're starting to make the shift towards a model like this: because making games like this is expensive. Consider that if such DLC was not present, it usually means that the development team is either moved to other projects or terminated outright. It usually means that the costs of the production are harder to recoup. Now, my natural response to that is "then stop spending millions to make your games and start being efficient" because I think it's poor design, but I can see WHY they're doing this sort of thing.

The capstone to this argument is perhaps this, though: everyone in here arguing about how the character is essential to the game's nature, and how it simply can't be denied to them, hasn't realized that perhaps it isn't being denied to them at all. Thus far, the only specifications from Bioware are that this $10 DLC unlocks the character as a squadmate, as well as unlocking a special bonus mission that goes with him. Bioware has NOT said that the character will not appear if you don't pay for the DLC. In fact, if previous leaks are to be believed (which is arguable, but it's all there is to go on), the character will still be present in the game for all players, complete with his interactions and everything. All we know for certain is that the DLC makes him available as a squadmate, and grants access to a special mission. To assert that we "know" that the DLC was in development during the original planning of the game, only to be removed at a later date intentionally, is an outright lie. We don't "know" that. It's possible, but it's not confirmed by any means. You simply THINK that's what happened, that doesn't make it fact. There is most certainly a difference.

According to people who got the Me3 stratagey guides and space edition copies of the game The Prothean himself is not in the base game, however there IS a Prothean VI who tells you EVERYTHING that was said in the leaked script.

I wonder how long will this thread keep going. Nowdays reading random comments here holds more interest to me than ME 3 itself.

CriticKitten:
Ah, see, I had hoped you'd be sensible enough to recognize that my question was an obvious bait, but I see that's not the case.

In that case, I am sorry to inform you that what you have just described is not unethical. An "unethical" action is one which inflicts harm upon society or a subset of society. Video games, however, are luxury items. They can be freely sold or denied to customers at will, with no actual detriment to the society at large or to any portion of society.

"Unethical" is a company dumping sewage into the town's drinking water. "Unethical" is a corporation using its money to bribe politicians in an effort to push for laws that benefit them and harm their competitors. "Unethical" is most certainly not a word that can be used to describe DLC. It's no more "unethical" than expansion packs before them, or game sequels. I would agree that it might be bad business practice, but it is certainly not unethical.

This is like walking into McDonald's and ordering a cheeseburger, then expressing moral outrage at the fact that they refuse to serve you a Big Mac instead. Or getting upset because they charge you extra to add certain condiments. You purchased a cheeseburger, so you get what you ordered. You do not dictate what that cheeseburger contains, the company selling it to you gets to decide how much to charge and what it contains. If they decided tomorrow to cut down on the contents of their Big Mac sandwich, and instead offered you the ability to "upgrade" the sandwich for an additional fee, you might moan and complain, but it's within their right to do so. It's their product, and it's a luxury item, so they can do whatever they want with it. If you don't like it, go get a burger elsewhere.

This is hardly a matter of ethics so much as business practice. And I can honestly see why they're starting to make the shift towards a model like this: because making games like this is expensive. Consider that if such DLC was not present, it usually means that the development team is either moved to other projects or terminated outright. It usually means that the costs of the production are harder to recoup. Now, my natural response to that is "then stop spending millions to make your games and start being efficient" because I think it's poor design, but I can see WHY they're doing this sort of thing.

The capstone to this argument is perhaps this, though: everyone in here arguing about how the character is essential to the game's nature, and how it simply can't be denied to them, hasn't realized that perhaps it isn't being denied to them at all. Thus far, the only specifications from Bioware are that this $10 DLC unlocks the character as a squadmate, as well as unlocking a special bonus mission that goes with him. Bioware has NOT said that the character will not appear if you don't pay for the DLC. In fact, if previous leaks are to be believed (which is arguable, but it's all there is to go on), the character will still be present in the game for all players, complete with his interactions and everything. All we know for certain is that the DLC makes him available as a squadmate, and grants access to a special mission. To assert that we "know" that the DLC was in development during the original planning of the game, only to be removed at a later date intentionally, is an outright lie. We don't "know" that. It's possible, but it's not confirmed by any means. You simply THINK that's what happened, that doesn't make it fact. There is most certainly a difference.

Adj. 1. unethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behaviorunethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices"

Exploiting fans while not as 'bad' as doing the things you say is still pretty sleazy. You're abusing your fans for a quick buck at the possible detriment to the company in the long run. It's neither ethical or good buisness.

No, that's a terrible example, that's like ordering a Big Mac and they withhold the cheese (Or whatever condiments you find most appealing) unless you pay an extra 50 cents for it. Imagine if Mass Effect 2 took out LEGION unless you paid 10$ for him? Without him you miss out on an awesome character, and a lot of the backstory that explains what geth are and why they act the way that they do.

Also, if the character is present in the game than that self-refutes as you claim that the character was not in the game. Do you not see the obvious self-refutation?

It's funny people still think Bioware exists, Bioware died a while ago, EA just decided to keep it's name to fool people.

Also this really doesn't surprise me.

James Raynor:
Adj. 1. unethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behaviorunethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices"

Exploiting fans while not as 'bad' as doing the things you say is still pretty sleazy. You're abusing your fans for a quick buck at the possible detriment to the company in the long run. It's neither ethical or good buisness.

Yes, I'm aware of what unethical means. Unfortunately it appears in your rush to prove me wrong that you didn't read what you were quoting.

"not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior"

There is no business standard whatsoever that says that a company cannot dictate what products it offers and what those products contain. Nor is any actual harm inflicted as a result of the withholding of these services, on grounds that the product in question is a luxury item. Thereby, there is no basis to your claim that DLC is an "unethical" practice.

You are just being entitled by insisting that you deserve access to "everything", because quite frankly, no, you don't. You get what the company decides is fair, and no more. I'll freely admit it's poor practice, but it's not unethical. It's not even remotely immoral. And it harms NO ONE in the process.

No, that's a terrible example, that's like ordering a Big Mac and they withhold the cheese (Or whatever condiments you find most appealing) unless you pay an extra 50 cents for it.

Actually those two examples are precisely the same thing.

In both cases, you're being a spoiled runt of a customer who demands that a company provide them with something that you feel entitled to, and the company has decided that it's not. Whether a Big Mac has cheese or not is NOT your decision. That's what you refuse to comprehend. At the end of the day, the company decides what products it wants to sell, what those products will contain, how they will market and sell the product to you, and whatever other features and services they want. You, as the customer, either accept to buy the product with their conditions attached, or you leave and go buy your burger elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with that. A company provides a product and the customer can either buy it or find another company that provides a product with conditions that they prefer. This notion that the company is somehow immoral for providing you with a product you wanted, but not to the exact specifications you demand, is why so many people call gamers such as you "entitled". And it is a very worthy and accurate title, given the context of things. Without even knowing the whole story or situation, and refusing to even hear Bioware's side of the tale, you have jumped up and said "This is wrong and unethical! Players deserve access to everything that the developers make!". That is not reality. You deserve precisely what the company decides to sell you, and not a single pixel more or less. That's the agreement you make with them when you give them your money. If you don't like that, don't give them your money.

Perhaps the worst part is that we all know that most of the rage in this thread is worthless. The fact that most of the whiners in this thread are still going to rush out to stores on Day 1 to buy the metaphorical "burger" from Bioware regardless of whether or not they change the DLC policy of this character is proof positive that you're whining over absolutely nothing at all. If you refuse to vote with your wallet and refuse to refrain from buying the game as a protest against the business practices they have chosen, then you have no right to argue and complain in the first place.

Also, if the character is present in the game than that self-refutes as you claim that the character was not in the game. Do you not see the obvious self-refutation?

No, because I'm sensible and recognize that a character can still be present in the game without being a squadmate. You're trying to create a weakness in my argument where none exists, presumably because you have nothing to fall back on.

It's clear that you either don't recognize the difference between a character and squadmate, or you're purposefully being dense and trying to lump the two in together because it suits your argument better. The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the character does not appear in the game unless you've bought the Collector's Edition. In fact, if any of the existing previous leaks of ME3 material are facutally accurate, then there is actually evidence to show that the character DOES appear in the game. This implies that the DLC is merely to allow players to access him as a squadmate and run a special mission with him. That is entirely different and wholeheartedly defuses the entire point your argument is based around, namely "he won't appear in the game unless you buy DLC, and that's bad because he's storyline critical!". But if, in fact, he does appear in-game and the DLC is merely a squadmate code (as current evidence would suggest), then you are not being denied anything but an extra squadmate. No story is lost, and your argument completely falls apart.

Maybe it's launch day dlc because BW has realized after people see the endings to the game they're not going to be selling many copies post-release, so they might as well milk the fans while they still have fans to milk. lulz.

Quiet Stranger:
It's funny people still think Bioware exists, Bioware died a while ago, EA just decided to keep it's name to fool people.

Also this really doesn't surprise me.

Its funny how people blame EA for changing Bioware when Bioware was pulling this crap ages before they got bought.

Nostalgia is a silly thing.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here