Mass Effect designer defends day one DLC, says game developers 'are not evil'
Christina Norman, former designer and programmer of the Mass Effect franchise, discussed day-one DLC and why it is not "evil" to do it.
When BioWare revealed day-one single player DLC for Mass Effect 3, players were up-in-arms about how content had been cut for the sole purpose of making more money. But is that really true? Christina Norman, former designer and programmer of the Mass Effect franchise (currently at Riot Games), presented a one minute rant at Game Developers Conference, asking consumers to simply "judge our games based on what they are."
"There's no point in releasing DLC a year after your game has come out when most people have already sold your game back to GameStop three times," she told the audience. "That means getting it out early; that means even day-one DLC. That is a terrible thing to some players. Players rant--they know nothing about this DLC that's coming out except its name. But then it's 'oh this game must be incomplete, the game must be ruined.' Game developers are not evil. (Some are evil.) But most are not evil."
"We just want to release awesome stuff. Players please, give us a chance. Judge our games based on what they are. Judge the DLC based on what it is. Stop thinking you're a producer and telling us when and where we should be building our content."
-
Shacknews
replyAndrew Yoon posted a new article, Mass Effect designer defends day one DLC, says game developers 'are not evil'.
Christina Norman, former designer and programmer of the Mass Effect franchise, discussed day-one DLC and why it is not "evil" to do it.-
[deleted]
-
Stop charging $60+ for the full experience at launch and people will stop complaining. It's not that DLC exists on day one, it's that customers feel like they are missing out if they don't buy it and being gouged if they do.
Rather disgusting how fast the jump was from the ME2 bonus character and content as an incentive for people who buy the game new to being charged $10 extra for essentially the same thing in ME3.-
if it was $30 people would still complain. They would complain because they are entitled bastards, but also because day 1 DLC is a money grab.
-
They complain because $60 is more than half of $100 and some of use aren't pulling a corporate sized pay check.
-
This right here. The argument is always well you get more entertainment then a movie and that is ten bucks for two hours. I don't buy games at 50 bucks and I'm sure as fuck not buying them at 60. A game really has to grab me for me to play it until the end. Most games get my attention for 2-3 hours. Last 60 dollar games; Rage, Batman: AC, Starcraft 2 are sitting there with about 3 hours played.
-
-
-
So you're fine with the graphical and audio fidelity in games staying on par with PS2/Xbox games? Because, if not, bitching about a $10 increase in 2 decades just seems silly; unless you think that games cost the same to make as they did in the 90s.
-
-
That's a completely valid position. If you don't feel the game is worth launch price, then don't buy it. But simply complaining about the price tag of games, when they have gone up a whopping total of $10 in 20 years (or down $30, based on the price of old Nintendo games at launch), while ignoring the huge increases in production costs in that same period is just silly.
-
If you want to defend EA's project ten dollar, which started out as tax on used game buyers and has now (not so subtly) morphed into a way to milk $10 more out of every potential customer on day one simply because game prices haven't been raised since the 360 launched, then I really hope you don't care when every new game ends up costing you more than $70.
Game budgets are rising but a lot of these AAA games aren't getting any better, and some are even getting shorter and simpler and less interesting and the sequel fatigue has never been worse. And these expensive games lose their value faster than anything. That $60 game becomes a $28 one the second you open the wrapper.
I'm still of the opinion that games would sell more and thus make more from the sheer number of sales if they weren't so expensive. It's a pipe dream for the industry but it's reality to me. I'm much more likely to buy an indie or PC or XBLA or PSN game without thinking twice than I am something like Mass Effect 3 at launch, especially when they pull some DLC bullshit like this. The only reason I even got BF3 was a $42 preorder deal on amazon. Fact is, there are too many games these days and because they lose their value so quickly more people are starting to wait for the prices to drop by $20 in a month or two, plus there are the huge sales that you see regularly on Amazon & Steam. There's not a lot of incentive to even buy most of these games new (especially when SP is the draw) when there's always something less expensive and just as good to be played, only difference is that it's slightly older. It's still the same exact game and quality though.
Of course a lot of people buy into the hype or just love what they love and have $60 to burn every week on something they'll put down after a few hours, or maybe not even touch for months. I still buy $60 games, it's just getting rarer and rarer these days because as entertainment very few are actually worth the price of admission to me. I got SSX at full price and loved it for the first few days but now I realize I should have just waited and played something else instead. Skyrim was the last game in a long time that I felt like I got a good deal for my $60.
I probably would have caved and bought ME3 if the DLC was included like Zaeed & Cerberus was in ME2, but I gotta draw the line somewhere no matter how asinine people like you think it is and how futile I know it is in the grand scheme of things.
-
-
thats really funny. i can think of tons of games that are worth more than $70. what is $70 worth of content to you? how long should a 70 dollar game be? how repetitive should it be?
i think set prices are silly and game prices should be set however the developer wants and however they value their own game. cutting part of the game to sell it on the side and pretend it was not developed at the same time is ridiculous, though-
It's one thing if it's an actual physic object like an arcade cabinet or SNES cart that has actual hardware and memory inside and cost a lot more to produce than a disc does to press. There are some things I would consider worthy of 500 dollars or more out there. Would I pay that much for a gaming antique? Probably not.
I buy 90% of my games digitally now and just don't value them the same way as something tangible, no matter what the content is or length or replayability. It's just a license and may not be a permanent one. So I am coming from that mindset and method of game consumption when I say I don't consider anything out there is worth $70 to me. Not even Diablo 3!
If that helps you understand any better. Probably not.
-
-
-
Yeah, and games used to cost a lot more to make when they didnt make millions of dollars worth of profit. Cartridges were, and always have been, more expensive to make than these dvd copies we are purchasing, get out of that closet, and into the real world, kid.
Just because one of the first computers like an Altair 8800 sold for nearly $1800 in today's dollars, doesn't mean I should have to pay 2k for a very complex calulator today. Don't be so daft.
ME2 Sold about 2.5 Million depending what you read, and assuming they make about $35 on average per sale, that's a conservative estimate of about 87 and a half million dollars.
Super Mario Three has grossed about 1.7b (adjusted for inflation) at this point (as of 2011).
So in 2 years they have made half of what super mario made in almost 23... yeah... your example is totally apt.
$65 dollar cartridge.
=
$60 DVD.
Not to mention that a game like Modern Warfare Three grossed 400 million dollars in 1 day.
More fail please.
-
-
-
-
I believe people are judging it as a game that is missing a chunk of significant backstory because the devs wanted to make more money. Nothing she said actually contradicts that.
Also, maybe more developers and publishers should look to Bethesda's (and others') strategy of using DLC to extend the life of a game. -
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
"Stop thinking you're a producer and telling us when and where we should be building our content."
You better &*%@ing believe the type of fans that flock to the story driven, narrative based games that Bioware is known for will damn well hold very strong opinions about exactly what content you should be making and when and where it is released. Cultivating that type of customer cuts both ways. Bioware wants the raving fan loyalty and admiration but those same people will internet crucify you for any number of reasons. Pull a KOTOR and they'll fall at your feet. Fail to meet their high expectations and they'll be up in your forums and metacritic user reviews non stop. They'll moralize and judge your every action and public statement/tweet. Appear to get greedy with DLC and they'll jump on you. You can't have it both ways, Bioware. Your fans are your money ticket but also your worst enemy because they get so invested in your products they seek/demand participation in them. Hell yes they will judge you as a producer. -
more like STFU because you make idiot assumptions about how things work.
-
-
We just want to release awesome stuff. Players please, give us a chance. Judge our games based on what they are. Judge the DLC based on what it is.
lol. if your dlc isn't "awesome" enough to include in the launch version of the game chances are i'm not even going to bother with it. i don't think i've ever bought single player game DLC, especially "bonus-mission" type shit on or after day one. if it didn't come with the standard game or as some kind of preorder bonus that didn't cost me any extra then i won't buy it. if i think less of your game because of the content that wasn't included then whoops that's your fault, probably should've put it in the game at launch.-
There's been some really good single player DLC like some of the stuff released for Fallout 3 and apparently Minerva's Den for Bioshock 2. I can't think of any day 1 DLC that didn't feel like a cash-in though.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
$25 main game, $25 for all the romance/sidemission/planetprobing shit? I'd be down with that.
-
-
/facepalm so sick of Bioware's crazy spree.
-
Which for you guys is the more egregious DLC offense from this week: Mass Effect 3's day one DLC or Street Fighter x Tekken's on-disc DLC? Just curious.
-
With SFxT it is a bit different. If you look at how Mortal Kombat had its DLC problems with syncing during online fights, they should have had some of the DLC stuff on disc. And you can see them trying to rectify their mistake by releasing the GOTY version or whatever it's called. So with SFxT, and pretty much fighting games in general, there should be some sort of compatibility DLC files already on the disc to prevent what happened with MK. It is a shame that people like to use this as a knock against the games, but given how limited the systems for DLC are, you have to see that it's pretty much the only way for it to be properly implemented.
-
That was a poor excuse.
Compatibility files, maybe. But, it's so dumb to say "well we need them on the disc for compatibility issues!"
Know what a better way to fix that compatibility issue is? The characters are already on everyone's disc. Don't lock them behind pay walls. Compatibility issue solved!
-
-
The Kobayashi Maru of DLC arguments :/
-
-
KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRKKKKK!!!!!!!
-
-
-
I feel the Street Fighter X Tekken DLC is worse. 12 characters not in the roster and DLC combos that will all make it into the Vita version for $10 cheaper than the console game is now.
I've gone from Day One support to wait for it to go on sale and spend the money I would have spent day one on getting the DLC or waiting for a GOTY edition. Then I get the full experience that the developers had in mind. Not spending twice the cost of the game over time on DLC crap that's usually throw away anyhow.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Heh, notice how she didn't deny that it could have been included with the disc game.
And then, hilariously, gets all fired up and takes a shot at gamers with the "stop trying to be a producer" line. -
-
-
A game without content that is artificially cut just to bleed more money from the consumer.
It's funny how she gets all defensive and marginally insults gamers by saying "stop trying to do a producer's job!"
Because yeah, having a reasonable concern about whether or not we're getting ripped off is us trying to do their jobs.
Ask gamers for understanding by insulting them is also quite humorous. :D-
[deleted]
-
Ah, okay. So you don't understand the development/DLC process. If you had just said that earlier, you would've looked much less foolish.
-
Heh, I make sure I don't get ripped off by stupid publisher bullshit, and I'm the foolish one. Gotcha.
Ah, okay. So you're an idiot. If you had just said that earlier, perhaps I could take you seriously. -
Also your reading comprehension fails, miserably, considering how you jump to conclusions about my understanding.
It's not as if I don't realize that DLC can be done after a game goes to be pressed, or even on a different budget, in case of on-disc DLC.
My point was that instead of telling an audience full of people (and the internet I guess) this, she gets all defensive and accuses them of hubris. Kind of sends up a red flag in regards to this one DLC situation. <_<-
Except the people who engage in DLC bitching do have hubris! They're trying to tell the developers who actually worked on the game about their own process! Don't you see how insane that is?
My understanding is that whenever anyone makes a game, they put lots of stuff and features in that get cut. At some point in the process people start saying "it would take too much work to make this fun and we can't afford it", so things get cut. Taking the ideas that would still work if given a bit of love and packaging them up as DLC enables that stuff to carry on and get made, because now there's a budget for it.
That doesn't mean that all DLC is OK mind - I'm not defending horse armor! But the DLC for ME2 was worthwhile and I reckon that'll still be the case for ME3.-
I agree, I'm just saying that I can totally understand the concerns of someone who thinks they're getting ripped off by day one DLC, and instead of putting those fears to rest and explaining the logic behind those cases, this lady just gets all defensive and tries to turn the gamers into the bad guys. Dodging the issue in this instance, as it were.
-
-
-
-
Once all the DLC is released and the game has all its bugs worked out. Throw it all together with a dash of 3rd party addons.
-
Every game should cost ten dollars and have ten years worth of content on it. At least that's what I get from a lot of the comments regarding every single game released in the past few years on here.
-
we're not hating on her. we're hating on what she believes in. there is a difference
-
Since when do you work in the Biodome?
-
"... former designer and programmer of the Mass Effect franchise (currently at Riot Games)"
-
-
-
-
Seriously, do you see manufacturers of other products complaining when they're resold over and over? Most of them have just gotten over it. Hopefully products in the entertainment industry will get there soon.
-
I found the reselling argument hollow. It's being based on the assumption that "nobody buys DLC for a game a year later," which feels false to me. I guarantee you if Valve releases Portal 2 DLC next month, people would buy it. If Mortal Kombat DLC came out a few months from now, people would buy it. If a game is worth playing, people will continue to support it long after release.
-
-
Norman should just stay quiet because these comments just sounds out of touch. Putting the protheans behind a day one pay wall is a cheap shot. Bethesda's DLC is the right way to do DLC. Rockstar with GTA and RDR also handled DLC better because it was content that expanded upon the base game. For a story/narrative driven game like Mass Effect, what EA is pulling here is akin an author blanking out some chapters in the middle of his novel and releasing them separately in their own little mini paperbacks.
-
lol. This makes me laugh from a series that has has 2 games out on other PC platforms, but if you want to finish it, you have to buy it through Origin. pfft.
-
I don't mind paying for DLC or Day one DLC if it has a clear value. I have a problem when it becomes clear that the DLC was originally game content cut from the game.
-
No customer would prefer day 1 DLC over the content shipping with the game. Wait at least 2 weeks so you don't seem like you are just out to rape your already paying customers. When a company makes a decision it knows if it is mostly motivated to make things better for the customer or to make things better for the business. Day 1 DLC reeks of making things better for the business. DLC a month later at least has a hint of providing the option of more content for customers who liked the game and want more, while also making more money for the business.
-
""There's no point in releasing DLC a year after your game has come out when most people have already sold your game back to GameStop three times," she told the audience. "That means getting it out early; that means even day-one DLC."
A whole year after the game is released, eh? Way to really exaggerate an issue in an attempt to make a valid point. No ones asking you release DLC fast, or even at all. In fact, quite the opposite. The 'From Ashes' DLC should have been made part of the regular game. For some games, DLC is a great idea, for some games, its not. Mass Effect 3 is a game that most people play once, and then move on. You knew that, so you created content thats important to the mass effect storyline and intentionally sold it extra for a cash grab.
And the worst part is, years later when I decide to revisit the game, the DLC isnt on the disk. If I dont have it stored on my hard drive of not-so-infinite space and your servers are gone or because its no longer sold on live or psn, its gone forever.-
-
[deleted]
-
You aren't alone in wanting it but you may be alone in buying it. With ever passing month after release, dlc sells less and less. Anything put out after 4 months for the most part will lose money unless they are rolling it with a new edition.
-
-
Microsoft once recommended that publishers put out the first DLC within 30 days of a title's release. (John Davison mentioned this in an early Weekend Confirmed episode in 2010).
-
[deleted]
-
Too bad that mentality usually just leads to some really awful DRM :(
-
-
-
Erm, Defence Grid - Awakening would like to have a word with you.
-
-
-
"There's no point in releasing DLC a year after your game has come out..."
Remember back when mods would extend the life of a PC game? Counter-Strike extending the life of Half-Life is probably the most prominent example. With most AAA multiplatform console-focused publishers, a game is dead to them in six months; if it doesn't sell well, it's dead to them in two months. -
-
Thanks for your insightful and erudite contribution.
-
If that is the best you can add to the conversation then you are a waste of a person. Please never post on this website again.
-
Nice teenage rage, bro.
-
His post history would indicate he's all about the rage.
-
-
-
Sorry, but you've already been found out.
The content is already there, right on the disk, then you locked it out. It's not extra, it was part of the product, but you saw the dollar signs.
It's basically ordering a burger at Burger King. It's a nice burger, cheese, lettuce, tomato, juicy patty and buns, a basic burger. Then, before you take a bite, you find out that you can't taste the cheese until you pay extra for it. Even though the cheese is already on it, they still want more money.
It is a total lack of integrity, plain and simple.
That aside, there are a million and one other complaints to acknowledge, but I'd rather this didn't turn into a rant. Besides, more likely than not, someone else has already brought them up for me.-
[deleted]
-
From what the internet dug up, it was the bonus character model and animation files and some voice stuff. Someone linked it here on the shack and there was another big thread but search can't find it. Was in there as far back as the November beta leak.
Anyway, the voice stuff makes sense because they likely recorded those during the same sessions as everyone else. And Casey Hudson recently said on the bombcast that they had a plan out and prioritize the team for every piece of content from the main game to the bullshit pre-order exclusives form the start. From what I've heard, the character is pretty well integrated into the game as if he was designed to be there from the start, most post release DLC doesn't usually gel that well and is more traditionally an addon in most respects. So I can understand why some people are feeling a bit perturbed. Especially when the bonus character DLC that came free with new copies of Mass Effect 2 day 1 was a lot less integral and did feel tacked on.
The mission that comes with the character was likely done after cert.-
-
Not BS at all. I don't recall seeing any developer claim that 100% of the DLC content was created after the main game was sent for certification. It seems reasonable that they realized there's always a couple months available after that point and thus planned ahead on what they'd do during that time, even figuring out how they'd integrate that DLC content into the game and doing some work on it earlier when possible (e.g. recording dialogue at the same time as the rest of the dialogue).
I can plan to cook a big meal next Friday night, and even pick up a few ingredients for it now, yet still do most of the work on Friday night.
-
This thread: http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=27795206#item_27795206
And it really doesn't "prove" anything.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Um not exactly the same. Its like buying a burger without cheese, then before eating being offered cheese as an additional extra, then finding out the cheese was already inside all along, except it was tasteless cheese until you paid.
Make sense?
-
-
-
All the shirt lifters having a whinge should take some advice from Chopper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y -
ITT people who don't understand how DLC gets made work themselves into some kind of towering, entitlement-based rage at the hazy understanding of how DLC gets greenlit.
-
[deleted]
-
Whoa whoa let's not get too carried away with this "logic" thing.
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
It would be dumb for a game like this because the character has lore behind him that fans of the series are interested in and they may not want to replay the game, the same RPG right away when they do put it up.
There's no real benefit to delaying it for the publisher or consumer. It's included in the $80 collector / deluxe editions for a reason. They thought the fans would pay that much for the conclusion to the series the loved. And many have. Smart business.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
She didn't defend anything. She basically just told people to stop whining. If she had provided one legitimate reason as to why this day-one content isn't included in the full-priced game --other than the money-- then maybe she would convince someone that this type of marketing tactic isn't blatantly greedy. All she provided was meaningless exaggerations in an attempt to deflect players' aggression.
I hope one of the higher-ups at Riot Games shuts her up because she's not helping anything.-
This. Instead of telling everyone who might not know that the DLC was done on a separate budget, or was worked on after the game went gold, she just jumps right to getting all defensive and tells people to "stop thinking they're producers". More or less confirming what we were accusing EA of in the first place.
Good job, lady.-
How about grow some balls instead of getting angry at a woman on the internet.
-
How about going outside instead of talking shit on the internet, kid.
-
-
-
-
-
You should be very proud of yourself!!!
-
-
The whole concept of DLC is flawed, the only party benefiting from it is the dev/publishers. Go back to the expansion model where significant content is added at a cost. All DLC does is fragment the game and it jacks up the price and rightfully pisses consumers off. With the expansion model content can be lumped together and actually give the reception of a worthwhile investment. while maintaining the integrity of the core game.
-
Agreed. The problem now is that Devs and Publishers have too much control and power. I know it is their business, but this development of telling the community to fuck off will hurt them eventually. They would be wise to stay away from statements and policies that piss off consumers. Popular games will not be so forever. Granted the dirge of truly good titles much of the time makes it harder for consumers to successfully bitch about a game like ME3. But when you do things that essentially = taxes (DLC) and then expect people to line up to suck your member don't expect good feelings. Yes I will suck it, but only because I am addicted to your video game crack. I don't like it and feel used and mistreated because of it.
-
-
-
You only get the From Ashes DLC free if you bought the collector's edition/boner version of ME3. If not, you have to pay $10; From Ashes was available on Day One too.
-
-
There is absolutely no defense for holding back story content in games.
It is the equivalent of holding back chapters in a book and releasing them later.
Then the way Bioware simply chops up content to monetise, is also inexcusable.
If they want to release awesome stuff, put it on the fucking disc. It's not a difficult formula.
Bioware is the shining example of evil at the moment. -
"There's no point in releasing DLC a year after your game has come out ..."
Way to miss the point. The problem is that this is clearly content created during the development of the game sliced out for marginal extra profits. This particular one seems like a pretty big deal given the context of the story and lore.
"...when most people have already sold your game back to GameStop three times."
Isn't that exclusive new purchase DLC is for? From Ashes could have easily been this much like Warden's Keep, Zaeed, Shale, and Sebastian.
"they know nothing about this DLC that's coming out except its name. But then it's 'oh this game must be incomplete, the game must be ruined."
We know the nature and spirit of DLC. DLC is to expand the life span of a game's playerbase by releasing incremental content. This not only generates marginal profits for the game but also media exposure for the game keeping the game relevant. This, combined with exclusive content codes for new purchases, will boost latter sales. Day one DLC is not this. It does not expand the life of the game and only serves to sap more profits from the consumers.
It's not evil but it sure is an anti-consumer attitude.
-
[QUOTE]"There's no point in releasing DLC a year after your game has come out when most people have already sold your game back to GameStop three times," she told the audience.[/QUOTE]
Is that serious? If you have the possibility of decent DLC or expansions further down the line, then we wouldn't sell the game in the first place, that actually gives us a reason to hang onto it. Actually cramming content in the first few weeks on release is what makes people sell them, since they have no reason to hang onto them anymore, they've all the game has to offer or will offer.
[QUOTE]
"That means getting it out early; that means even day-one DLC. That is a terrible thing to some players. Players rant--they know nothing about this DLC that's coming out except its name. But then it's 'oh this game must be incomplete, the game must be ruined.' Game developers are not evil. (Some are evil.) But most are not evil."[/I][/QUOTE]
Please don't condescend to tell us what it means. Day one "DLC" (and i use that term loosely,) that is included on disk is not even DOWNLOADABLE content, and should have been part of the game from the start. Even if it's content that is not related to the main storyline, it's simply a way of trying to squeeze more money from your customers on day one. You know it, we know it, so stop insulting our intelligence and trying to justify it any other way.
[QUOTE]
"We just want to release awesome stuff. Players please, give us a chance. Judge our games based on what they are. Judge the DLC based on what it is. Stop thinking you're a producer and telling us when and where we should be building our content."[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but, did you really just tell your customers to stop giving you feedback on what they want and just accept whatever you deign to release? How about you just release "awesome stuff," stop telling us what we want, and stop letting greed shape your games. We always judge games and DLC based on what they are, we have to, since we spend our hard earned cash on these games. Which, coincidentally, gives you the ability to make more games, so perhaps you should have a little more respect for what the customer is telling you they want and don't want. Finally, we don't think we're producers, we are far more important; we are gamers, we are the people who enable you to have the job you do, we are the people who put the money into your coffers and have made gaming a multi billion dollar market, we are the ones who ultimately judge your games and company, we are your customer base. -
This is why people think GDC is a douche-fest full of self-righteous developers who think "the enemy" is big publishers and consumers who don't mindlessly buy every DLC pack without question. Christina Norman managed to be whinier and more offensive to consumers than Chris Hecker at most past GDCs.
-
Here's the problem:
Bioware would never had made this type of move in the pc game developing days when they were free of EA games. There generousity along with the quality of their games is part of what made them legendary. EA, the money hungry game developer / publisher swallower and destroyer of countless game studios told them to do so. EA basically ruins and destroys every game studio they buy and we are witnessing Bioware resorting to cheap moves as imposed on by EA. I will probably buy Mass Effect 3 and eventually get dlc when it hits dirt cheap but not before. This type of crap would never fly with PC games because developers actually create free content for their users on a regular basis as a "thank you". This is not so with EA games. EA is accustomed to monetizing and diluting their brands and properties because like any huge corporation they focus on profits and investors and ultimately the quality of their product becomes irrelevant. They suffer from "we have too many asshole executives that need to get paid because they sit on their ass and do nothing all day syndrome" while all creative artists and techical programmers do a majority of the hard work and get paid secondary wages. This creates a company culture that alienates the employees and creates a tone of resentment among the fans and the creative force at the company. This is happening in comics. Focus on the money and hitting profit margins while paying your artists and writers slave wages and firing them if they complain. Am I the only one who sees the problem in this logic when the creative people at your company are creating and visualizing the worlds that are allowing you to make money and eat? Artists, writers, designers, production people and programers should be making a lions share of the profits not the other way around. Selling day 1 DLC sends us, the customer the message that you deliberately held content back from the game and are now trying to charge us for said content REGARDLESS of whatever pointlessly flawed or idiotic statement you make. It looks cheap and money hungry despite claims to the contrary. -
Ya know if this was Day 1 DLC for those Burger King games...no one would give a shit. I agree with her, and no one is getting ripped off. The DLC is not required.
NOw had they come out and said "Ok here's Mass Effect, however to beat the game and see the ending, you need to buy this DLC" then I would see an issue.
But this is not the case.-
The "no one gives a shit" effect is a cascading effect. If you don't give a shit about the game itself, of course you won't give a shit about the DLC.
-
Ugh now this is getting retarded with the advent of this video http://kotaku.com/5892307/mass-effects-controversial-day+one-dlc-is-on-the-disc-video-alleges
Ok so the Prothean character is on the disc, big fucking deal, this proves nothing. The DLC is an entire mission AND location, which I've played not just a character unlock.
Just because the character is there only means that Bioware planned to have the Prothean as part of the storyline in some capacity, it doesnt mean anything other than that.-
It proves, just as always has been surmised, that they took the content from the main game and deliberately released it as "DLC" to generate more money, instead of keeping it on the disc, as it should be.
DIsgusting on Bioware's part.
-
-
-
-
I didn't read it that way. I think it's an appropriate reaction to all of the gamers who feel that it is their right to tell another company how to develop and package their games. I think more developers should make statements like this sooner.
It seems to me, In all other forms of media or entertainment, It's quite simple, either a consumer decides to buy a product or not. But gamers seem to be the only ones who continue to buy said product but then complain about how it was packaged. It's doesn't make much sense to me.
I say, we need to lose this warped sense of entitlement. The developer has a product. We get to decide to purchase the product or not. We also get to influence the direction and some areas of development, to a degree. We don't get to decide every facet of how it's developed. And I feel we should be ok with that.
-
-
-
-
