BioWare Defends Mass Effect 3 Launch-Day DLC

[SajuukKhar]

I didn't say DLC as is, is perfect.

However the way Bethesda/Obsidian handled the Fallout 3 and New Vegas DLC shows a marked improvement over the expansion system

More Content
Faster
At a less cost in the end.

Two of New Vegas's or Fallout 3's dlc cost 20 bucks and had more content then the 30 dollar Shivering Isles did.

 

[The Lunatic]

This DLC is a small expansion pack, as was most of the major DLC for ME2.

These are examples of "Decent" DLC, Stuff like Borderland's packs (Aside form Mad Moxxi) were very good packs that added a hell of a lot of content, for the same price as this squad member.

I didn't say DLC as is, is perfect.

However the way Bethesda/Obsidian handled the Fallout 3 and New Vegas DLC shows a marked improvement over the expansion system

More Content
Faster
At a less cost in the end.

Two of New Vegas's or Fallout 3's dlc cost 20 bucks and had more content then shivering isles did.

I really don't think it does, and even then you're comparing a company that's likely one of the best DLC producers for their games.

Yes, Bethesda does it well.

But, name one other company that packs nearly as much content into their DLC packs.

Again to come back to Borderlands,

Armoury of General Knoxx features a new vehicle, new enemies, new bosses, new environments, weapons, gear, basically everything that was in the game was increased, new missions which had to be voice acted, new models which had to be created, so on and so forth.

We're talking hours of additional content here.

Cost, $10.

Now compare this.

A new squad member, using an existing model in the game, likely reusing attacks already featured in the game by other characters.

Might be a few added lines of dialogue here and there too.

An extra mission, as to what that will involve is yet to be seen, but, if we base it off the previous games, it's likely to be a 20 minute - 40 minute mission featuring a few bits of dialogue, one morality system option and then a conclusion that changes nothing in the main game.

Cost, $10.


Far from perfect is an understatement.

With Expansions, at the very least you knew for sure there is a sizeable chunk of content there, their content was often heavily publicized as they were basically seen as a second release for a game.

With DLC, you basically have to take it at face value, for the most part, they're overpriced and add very little to the game.

 

[Erttheking]

If you think that it's overpriced and doesn't add to the game then don't buy it, I don't see the problem.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I found just about all of Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2's, Dragon Age Origins DLC to be worth the cost.


Also slapping the word "expansion" on it doesn't mean you can know anything about its content level.

Morrowind's Bloodmoon expansion is a perfect example, it lacked anywhere near the content of Tribunal yet was the same price.

Expansion are no less of a face value call as DLC.

Also Mass Effect 2's companion missions do change thing in the game, specifically in Mass Effect 3.

 

[Syphith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0vrJ-y2zM

This guy can explain this much better than anyone here. I agree with him entirely, simply because he's 100% right. I would've been fine with this as long as the DLC was entirely aesthetic, but it's not, and the game hasn't even been released yet, also, the price of the DLC is 1/5, maybe less of the full game, so it should contain that much imo.

The thing is that TotalBiscut's video has been torn to shreds time and time again.

He is wrong, almost 100% so.

Most of what he said is opinion so it can't exactly be "wrong." As I said before, I'm not really a fan of his, as I've only seen a few videos, but I definitely agree with him on his point about what pre-order DLC should be. If you don't, that's fine, that's what makes it an opinion.

He is right about Zaeed and Shale as far as I'm concerned, especially if as you and others have argued, all the DLC is, is the ability to use the Prothean as a party member. Then it's near identical to what we received with those characters for free. While there are somethings that can definitely be argued against in his statement, there's no way it can be "100% wrong" and none of the points that debunk his can be confirmed until we all play the game.

would you considering a Prothean grunt who has no real knowalge of everything part of Mass Effects canon?

Also do you remember the days of expansions?
The days of having to wait for a year or more to get new content?
The days when said content was only about 2 of New Vegas' DLC worth of content?
The days where you had to pay 30-40 dollars what you can get from two 10 dollars DLC today?
The days where after you beat said content you had to wait another year or more to get new content?

those days SUCKED.

I don't know about you but I personally don't want to go back to that.

I wouldn't quote twice if I could avoid it, but I had to address these statements. I bought countless expansions during the 90's and early 2000's and nothing from today's content packs, even two of them, adds up to a single expansion in those days as far as I'm concerned. Especially if you look at the worst of what we get today.

Much of what Bioware releases as DLC today can be as short as an hour or two, so even if you put together two of those on the best day, I can't think of a single RPG expansion pack that was only three or four hours long. Also while New Vegas' content definitely is better than Bioware's DLC track record, only a couple of those would add up to what an expansion pack would be, certainly not all of them, as I'd say out of the set, about half of them were definitely quite short.

The days you say sucked, I loved, as real Expansion Packs allowed for considerable story expansion, instead of the short, near meaningless side-stories we get today. I will say there are a few stand out DLC in recent years, but the majority, do not compare at all to what we used to get in expansions in terms of content or story.

I don't really mean offense and I'm sorry but this-
"The days where you had to pay 30-40 dollars what you can get from two 10 dollars DLC today?"
-Is a ridiculous statement. As there might only be one or two cases where this even comes close to being true.

EDIT:
Just read your most recent post and you apparently believe that all of Bioware's recent DLC content is worth it's price. Which means we could not be further apart on the issue, which is fine. You can buy your DLC, I'll use that same cash on amazing Arcade games which are at the bare minimum twice as long and on buying other great full games to help support Developers that aren't guaranteed to be rolling in dough as soon as their game is released, no matter the level of pollish. Too many great games get ignored in favor of buying every short DLC that comes out. If you can afford to purchase both, my hat's off to you, but I know many people that can't and choose to only buy Bioware DLC, no matter how negligible it is. If they'd listen and give something else a chance, they'd know how bad of a decision they're making, how many amazing games they're missing out on.

 

[The Lunatic]

If you think that it's overpriced and doesn't add to the game then don't buy it, I don't see the problem.

It's extremely rare I do.

But, I am disappointed, when rather than the developers of a game I like, work on weapon skins, small new missions and other such stuff, rather than pooling that time into making a chunk of content and releasing it as an expansion, simply because things like weapon skins and map packs sell better.

I suppose these days, chunks of new content is something developers consider solely to be sequel territory. Even then, that often falls flat.

I found just about all of Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2's, Dragon Age Origins DLC to be worth the cost.


Also slapping the word "expansion" on it doesn't mean you can know anything about its content level.

Morrowind's Bloodmoon expansion is a perfect example, it lacked anywhere near the content of Tribunal yet was the same price.

Expansion are no less of a face value call as DLC.

Also Mass Effect 2's companion missions do change thing in the game, specifically in Mass Effect 3.

I'd disagree with you, I didn't personally regard many of them as being worth much amount of money, and I don't recall buying any of them.

An expansion is an extra physical release of the game, rather than "Downloadable content" which is, as the name implies, downloadable.

When you release an expansion, it's often critically appraised, often times people review expansions, and the eye of judgement is placed upon it, as they tend to be large releases of extra content, thus why the effort of releasing a new disc with all this content on has been made.

They tend to be advertised due to all this extra effort, and are generally touted as being a new release of the game.

Yes, there are bad expansion packs, there's no doubting this, but, generally speaking, the vast majority of expansion packs contain more content for a more reasonable price than the vast majority of DLC.

 

[SajuukKhar]

The difference is that
1. Shale was originally meant to be in the game, and recruitable in Redcliff. Bioware released Shale for free for new copies because she was intended to be in the game from the beginning, the Prothean squadmate was not, different situation entirely.

2. Zaheed, well more precisely all the free DLC on the Cerberus network, was part of EA's "project 10 dollar". Mass Effect 3's multiplayer takes Zaheed's, and the other free DLC's, place in this next game. You already got your free content from getting the game new in the ability to play multiplayer, which gives you more potential play hours then the free ME2 DLC ever did, and now you are asking for EVEN MORE free things then you got in the last game.



Yes because
Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal
Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark
Neverwinter Nights: Shadows of Undrentide
Tribunal
Bloondmoon

Were such great additional to the base games plot........... ohh wait they had NOTHING to do with the base games plot at all. MOST expansion packs for RPGs back in the day were built to be standalone isolated stories that had almost no relation to the base game.

On the other hand the entire DLC questline in Fallout New Vegas's DLC shed light on one of the most important characters in the game, and all of Bioware's DLC integrates itself into the base game providing more context on it.

If standalone Expansions that don't carry on the base games plot/characters/setting etc. etc. add MORE to the story then DLC that intagrates itself the base game, we must be living in Bizzaro world.

 

[salinv]

Why are people still raging about this? I am more upset about Bioware's announcement about the Arrival- like DLC that would let you meet a friendly Reaper that would join your cause. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ&ob=av3e] That breaks the lore so badly... Bioware's really going too far.

I just wish that Dragon Age 3 will be decent.

I was about to get on and say something to the effect of "spoiler that shit, sir." Then, damn it, I took the bait. Well done.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I would argue that both Arrival and Lair add more to the base game then most old expansions because
1. Shadow Broker picks up the hanging Liara thread in the base game
2. Arrival continues the overall objective of ME2 in, delaying/hunting the Reaper cause.

Compare that to like the NWN expansions, or bloodmoon, which were just here's some stuff. Has nothing to do with anything hinted at in the base games.

 

[Syphith]

Most of what he said is opinion so it can't exactly be "wrong." As I said before, I'm not really a fan of his, as I've only seen a few videos, but I definitely agree with him on his point about what pre-order DLC should be. If you don't, that's fine, that's what makes it an opinion.

It can be wrong because the facts that he presents his opinion on are wrong. The basis of his argument is false. He assumes that content is being cut from the game because the DLC is being released on the same day as launch. He also assumes that the character will be important to the overall plot of the game.

I know he seemse agreeable now, but he's been nothing but belligerent on his facebook, twitter and Reddit accounts. Openly insulting anyone who is ok with this, or their reasons for being ok with this.

I've said before that I'm actually a big fan of TB, I appreciate his love of PC gaming, his humor, and even his SC2 commentating. He's wrong here, though.

How do you know that he's wrong? I'm not saying that he isn't and he certainly isn't presenting any real evidence that what he thinks is right, but where's your evidence that he's wrong? If it's based on what any one person has said, then it's not really evidence, it's hearsay. This is my point, until we all play the game and find out for ourselves, no one really knows.

Also, as far as the character not being important to the overall plot, I'm not saying it is, but again, how do you know it wont be? It's also a opinion issue as well, no matter what the point of the Prothean ends up being, it's "level of importance" will be determined individually be each and everyone of us.

However he's being otherwise, like I said, I'm not really a fan, so I don't follow him that well, but if he really is being belligerent I'm sorry to hear it. He seemed decently levelheaded.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I know of at least one person from Bioware who has stated that the Porhtean is not needed to get a full game.

word from Bioware = word of god in the case of anything ME related.

 

[Syphith]

The difference is that
1. Shale was originally meant to be in the game, and recruitable in Redcliff. Bioware released Shale for free for new copies because she was intended to be in the game from the beginning, the Prothean squadmate was not, different situation entirely.

2. Zaheed, well more precisely all the free DLC on the Cerberus network, was part of EA's "project 10 dollar". Mass Effect 3's multiplayer takes Zaheed's, and the other free DLC's, place in this next game. You already got your free content from getting the game new in the ability to play multiplayer, which gives you more potential play hours then the free ME2 DLC ever did, and now you are asking for EVEN MORE free things then you got in the last game.



Yes because
Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast
Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal
Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark
Neverwinter Nights: Shadows of Undrentide
Tribunal
Bloondmoon

Were such great additional to the base games plot........... ohh wait they had NOTHING to do with the base games plot at all. MOST expansion packs for RPGs back in the day were built to be standalone isolated stories that had almost no relation to the base game.

On the other hand the entire DLC questline in Fallout New Vegas's DLC shed light on one of the most important characters in the game, and all of Bioware's DLC integrates itself into the base game providing more context on it.

If standalone Expansions that don't carry on the base games plot/characters/setting etc. etc. add MORE to the story then DLC that intagrates itself the base game, we must be living in Bizzaro world.

1. How do you know that the Prothean was not? Again, not saying that it wasn't, but how do you know this is true?

2. I'm sorry, but no, I am definitely paying for the multiplayer. Are you really trying to claim that we're getting the multiplay for free? It's part of the game, like any other multiplayer component, when I bought Battlefield 3, I didn't think I was getting the multiplayer for free. No matter what you think about the quality of ME3's multiplayer, it's still part of the content and we are most certainly not getting it as a "gift."

While I do see your point about Expansion Packs, no matter what you feel the value "story" of any one was, the amount of content was still there, so that's really all that needs to be compared.

As far as New Vegas' DLC story goes, I assume you're talking about Ulysses? Which first of all, most of the DLC only mentions him offhandedly and barely at all and the only one that has you interacting with him at all, Lonesome Road, was pathetically short and linear. Never mind the fact that I bet if you ask nearly any player of New Vegas that didn't touch the DLC who Ulysses was, they wouldn't have a clue. Because he wasn't important to the main game's over-all story at all and was barely even mentioned.

 

[BaronIveagh]

He even tried to refute it, but only addressed it's cursory elements, not how the content gets made.

Yes, because the fact it bares no actual resemblance to how EAs studios work should clearly be dismissed utterly. Granted, they do have three or so stages of development, but that seems to be where resemblance leaves off. (at least if statements from inside EA are to be believed)

Personally, I think he's right for the wrong reasons and have cancelled my CE preorder. This is as good a time as any to start standing up to game companies. I mean, seriously, to acquire 100% of the currently announced DLC is over $260.

Ladies and gents, TB is most likely talking out his ass, but I see this as an excellent opportunity. For a long time now we've been taken for granted by game companies. They assume that you, the consumer, are little better then a crack whore, who will happily blow hobos if they give you whatever game it is that is your personal poison.

They shove horribly one sided EULAs down our throats, they force DRM upon us, because we, the consumers, cannot be trusted. They lie to us and cheat us.

Now, I know many of you are saying 'Well, why should I give a shit? I got what I want, the rest of you can burn!'

Because it doesn't end there. If we keep giving, they keep pushing. Will you give a damn when you have to give a blood sample to use your games? When you have to buy the end of the game as DLC so you can finish it? When the game companies can legally put a camera in every room of your home?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[SajuukKhar]

1. Bioware said so?

2. You are getting the ability to PLAY the multiplayer for free when you buy new, not the actual multiplayer itself. People who buy the game used have to buy a online pass, similarly to how people who bought ME2 used had to PAY for the Cerberus network, while the people who bought it new got it for free.

They shifted the "project 10 dollar" from the Cerberus network, and thus the Zaheed and other free ME2 DLC, over to the multiplyaer.


@BaronIveagh

nice slippery slope fallacy there, to bad like every other use of said fallacy it is a broken argument.

Also in the 20 years of software having EULAs they haven't gotten worse, in some cases they have actually gotten better, and DRM has gotten significantly less common in recent years with only ubisoft really hanging onto the system.

ALSO how do you know it doesn't bare resemblance to how EA works? prove it.

 

[Syphith]

1. Bioware said so?

2. You are getting the ability to PLAY the multiplayer for free when you buy new, not the actual multiplayer itself.

1. And you immediately believe that this is true? Do you really think that if the Prothean was intended to be a squad mate originally that they'd admit to it up front? Obviously not. I'm not saying they're lying, so don't take it that way, but to blindly believe what someone who's in this kind of situation says is pretty gullible as far as I'm concerned. It's still hearsay and without true proof from either side, it will probably always remain this way. We will probably never know 100% what happened in this situation. You believe you know because someone you think you can trust told you so, but no matter what you think, that's not evidence. You can believe what you want, and since you're apparently such a fan of Bioware, I'm not surprised you automatically believe what you do, but I'll wait for some definitive proof to take sides on this issue, which means I probably never will.

2. Again, no, that's the Online Pass you're talking about. Free additional characters separate and unnecessary from the singleplayer do not equal the basic ability to play a multiplayer component included in the price of the game I paid for, not by a long shot. You really think my 60 dollars is paying for the multiplayer content, but not the code that lets me play it? Ridiculous.

 

[BaronIveagh]

nice slippery slope fallacy there, to bad like every other use of said fallacy it is a broken argument.

Actually when used in this context it's not a fallacy, but rather a classic debating argument. For it to qualify as the slippery slope fallacy there would have to be no reason that the events would lead to each other. In this case there is: greed and profit.

In this particular case, the boiling frog anecdote applies.


Edit:
In response to the rest of your argument:

You obviously have not been reading them then. For example: How many of you have access to Icelandic legal council to know if the EULA is even legal? (CCP Games) Safari 3.1 browser for Windows ship with a EULA that prohibits any computer other than an Apple-labeled computer from running it. Adobe briefly claimed the right to receive monetary remuneration off your created content. With out telling you about it. Origin... well, that one made news already and we all know what happened in Germany over it.

Prove it? Fine. EA management uses a flex system, assigning devs and programmers as needed. All those sections where people would be laid off or let go due to down time? Not true.

 

[rapidoud]

1. Bioware said so?

2. You are getting the ability to PLAY the multiplayer for free when you buy new, not the actual multiplayer itself. People who buy the game used have to buy a online pass, similarly to how people who bought ME2 used had to PAY for the Cerberus network, while the people who bought it new got it for free.

They shifted the "project 10 dollar" from the Cerberus network, and thus the Zaheed and other free ME2 DLC, over to the multiplyaer.


@BaronIveagh

nice slippery slope fallacy there, to bad like every other use of said fallacy it is a broken argument.

Also in the 20 years of software having EULAs they haven't gotten worse, in some cases they have actually gotten better, and DRM has gotten significantly less common in recent years with only ubisoft really hanging onto the system.

ALSO how do you know it doesn't bare resemblance to how EA works? prove it.

Steam is DRM
Origin is DRM

It's a very blurry line from there where copy-protection and DRM meet.

 

[SajuukKhar]

nice slippery slope fallacy there, to bad like every other use of said fallacy it is a broken argument.

Actually when used in this context it's not a fallacy, but rather a classic debating argument. For it to qualify as the slippery slope fallacy there would have to be no reason that the events would lead to each other. In this case there is: greed and profit.

In this particular case, the boiling frog anecdote applies.

It is a fallacy because greed and profit only work if they have people to take money from.

As silly as the "blood sample" and "cameras" stuff you mentioned is your argument that EA and other companies are just gonna keep on going with ever more restrictive measures is destroyed by the fact the companies know they are already approaching their limit.

Right now its a juggling game where they know were the barrier is but they are trying to get as close to it as possible without stepping over.

The FACT that EA has on several occasions outright removed the DRM on their games, or lessened the install limit restrictions, and have recently practically stopped using DRM does show they know where they can and can't go.

Your never ending rampage scenario is outright absurd and disprove by the actions taken by game companies in the past several years.

Steam is DRM
Origin is DRM

It's a very blurry line from there where copy-protection and DRM meet.

they aren't that's the thing.

 

[El Luck]

I have to say reading this thread has been fun. Always fun to see a group of people gang up someone who thoroughly deserves it getting their ass handed to them.

Anyway, I figured I'd add my 2 pence in to this already long and terribly over done topic.

So starting from the top!

In Mass Effect 3 there will be an NPC who is a prothean, having played ME1 I know enough that its quite an interesting turn of events.

The DLC that was announced before the game was released offers him as a playable character. The DLC also comes as standard with the special edition.

Now as far as I know this dude is in the game no matter what as an NPC, but you can pay to have him in the game as a playable squad mate with the DLC, and with the DLC a bunch of quests and shit to round him out as a squad mate.

Now if any of this is wrong, please correct me by all means, but please provide the proof necessary.
The spoiler below only applies to those thinking that you will have to pay to have this guy in the game fullstop.

Spoiler: If you were planning on telling me to go and look for this proof myself, please read

Don't tell me to go and look for this proof myself, the burden of proof is on you. If you tell me that the proof is somewhere on this thread, I'll call ballshit on that because I've read through this shit heap of a thread and seen no real proof to the contrary just a bunch of he/she says bullshit.

Just wanted to make my stance clear on that bit.

Anywho, my take on it is simple: I've never thought that day one DLC has ever really been worth buying. Not against DLC though, I buy it if its worth it..such as with Fallout and Borderlands. I didn't really think that Dragon Age: Origins DLC was worth it, but then again I got the version will all the DLC when I brought the game for the first time in 2010 When it was going cheap. Can't really comment on DA2..other than I regret even purchasing the game in the first place, but thats a topic for another time!

Back to day one DLC: Never thought it was worth buying but it made sense to me If you get it as part of a special edition it seems to be more worth it because they flesh it out with a bunch of other stuff too.

Though from reading through this thread it would seem that the special edition doesn't really have much going for it other than the extra price and the DLC to boot. Which does mean it seems to be cheaper to buy the standard edition and just get the DLC for a tenner. If i'm wrong on that, please correct me by all means.

Anyway...this rambling mess was my take on it, disregard if you feel like doing so.

 

[BaronIveagh]

The FACT that EA has on several occasions outright removed the DRM on their games, or lessened the install limit restrictions, and have recently practically stopped using DRM does show they know where they can and can't go.

they aren't that's the thing.

Actually Origin is. It has a built in series of libraries that function as DRM, or do the devs told me over on Origin's site.