DLCs that shouldn't be...

[RA92]

So I come into the gaming forums, look up and down at the topics, and the thing that comes to my mind is 'Hmm, what this place needs is a Mass Effect 3 DLC thread...'

Har har har! Har. Har

Now before we get started, please no dramatic screams of 'BETRAYAL!' or 'ENTITLEMENT!' I don't want this thread to be narrowed down to only ME3's day-one-DLC, but your general views on where the line should be drawn when it comes to content in DLCs.

And therein lies my issue - content, not the existence of DLCs themselves. I understand that game development is an expensive business, and it can justify keeping the people in employment not working on any project during the 3 month certification process of console games by making them work on DLCs. Just look at League of Legend's and TF2's revenue from cosmetic DLCs - and all that is done without sacrificing gameplay elements.

Where I draw the line is when DLCs aren't simply additional content (like the Kasumi and Zayeed DLC, or extra weapons and armor), but a requirement to fully understand the whole story. While going through the demo of ME3, I found my that apparently my ship has been locked down, and I had no idea why. Later my friend told me that I had to get a previous DLC to get the full story of that (a major plot point involving the Batarian home-planet and a mass relay), and I was miffed. And now what I hear is that I might not be able to meet a Prothean, A GODDAAMNED PROTHEAN, if I don't buy the CE or the day-one-DLC.

When I buy a game, especially a story-focused game, I expect to have a complete experience. It feels like a cheap move when you're cutting out narrative-changing moments in the plot - moments that might influence your thoughts and shift your perspective of the entire plot - and monetizing on it. It's hard to have respect for something that basically doles out pieces of critical plot-points based on how much extra dosh you payed.

I'm not screaming 'Boycott!' quite yet, though after the inclusion of EDI the sexbot [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nkiB2JY1xuE/TyzqoCxfGSI/AAAAAAAAFUA/7AjXuZt5K7A/s1600/chobot-allers-diana-jessic-mass-effect.jpg] I'll wait for reviews before it hits. If their direction turns out to be shit, it'll be bargain bin down the road (need some closure).

Though, no matter how much Bioware may try, they'll never be able to top id when it comes to Rage-inducing exclusivity. I mean, keeping the double barrel shotgun an exclusive? In an id game? Yeah, you're not beholden to include it in the standard release, but I'm under no moral obligation to buy your game either (missed a bullet too, since I've an ATi card).

But where do you draw the line?

 

[Xprimentyl]

I think any and all DLC should be EXTRA content, not pivotal game-changing content; if what you say is true and this DLC (or lack thereof) may affect the core experience I've been building across three games and several years, I'm with you in calling foul.

Personally, I liked DLC better back when it wasn't a guarantee and soemthing special to be looked forward too, when a game might be out for longer than 12 minutes before the dev tried to scrap more $$$ out of my wallet. There was a time when we talked about a game's DLC, and everyone knew what we were talking about; now, it's "which DLC? The mappack? The golden gun? The 142 additional playable characters? All of which are likely ON DISC already and unlockable with the appropriate code... depending on where you bought it, of course..." It's to the point now that $60 games are already costing us upwards of $100 before a game is 2 months old if we try and "stay current" with all the little crap they tack on for nominals fees every other day.

 

[AlternatePFG]

Honestly, as long as the DLC in question is affordable, and actually gives new content, I don't really have a problem with it. Certainly the ME3 DLC may (May being the key word here, we don't know if the character will be that important to the plot) have important plot information, but for all we know it just could be another Zaeed or Kasumi type thing. I really hold disdain for Day 1 DLC (Nobody bitched about this when DA2 was released, but then again there was bitching for other purposes when that game came out) but it's not like I'm going to go "That's it, I'm boycotting!" because that rarely works, and why bother? It's not like EA/BioWare is going to stop.

I'm pretty much repeating what I said in pretty much all the other threads like this, if you have a problem with the DLC, don't buy it. Don't buy the game if you want to. There are legitimate reasons to boycott the game, and I'm not going to criticize those who are.

I enjoyed the demo enough to be interested in getting the game when I originally had no intentions of buying it. Not a huge fan of BioWare or Mass Effect, but I play games to have fun, and the ME series is pretty dang entertaining, if nothing else.

On a side note, I don't think BioWare makes very good DLC though. While they have some really good DLC for ME2 (Lair of the Shadow Broker, Kasumi's Stolen Memories, even if it was overpriced) for the most part their DLC is too short or too inconsequential to be really worth the money, especially a lot of the Dragon Age stuff. I don't mind a weapon pack, but instead of selling multiple little ones, could you sell them in a bundle next time? (New Vegas's Gun Runners Arsenal wasn't too bad in this regard) Oblivion also had some rather stupid DLC, Shivering Isles aside.

Examples of DLC I think are actually worth the money, are the Fallout DLC's. With a couple of exceptions (Operation Anchorage, Mothership Zeta) they all had a significant amount of content , added a good amount to their game's world and actually lasted more than a couple of hours. Borderlands also had a few really good DLC's as well, again they actually lasted for awhile.

 

[Iwata]

I like DLC's as a whole. That is, when they add to the story, or interesting content at a good price.

I draw the line, however, at three concepts:

- Overpriced map packs that are more expensive than full-blown stand-alone games.
- "unlock" packs that just unlock stuff you can unlock in game anyway. Also known as "time-saver" DLC's. Seriously, you're paying the game to give you your rewards for playing the game.
- Buying in-game money. I've seen a few games do this, and the concept baffles me. WHO BUYS THESE?!

Otherwise, I'm usually ok. Extra stages, characters, campaigns, whatever, if it's good, I don't mind getting it.

 

[DoPo]

Can anyone top the horse armour DLC from Oblivion? Yes, no? It was the hugest waste of money I've seen so far. The armour didn't serve any purpose than to pimp out your horse somewhat and even then there were only two armours you can choose from, so once you saw them you could uninstall the DLC and never think of it again. However, if you did keep it around for your play it introduced some bugs regarding horses and especially Shadowmere - the only unique horse. It was unique because it was named and it couldn't be killed. Furthermore it was one of the fastest horses in the game. However with an armour on, Shadowmere could just disappear from the game never to be seen forever (while if armourless you could always find it in a specific place where it spawned). There was another unique horse-thing, namely a unicorn, however it couldn't be fitted with armour.

So to recap, you paid real money for two extra horse skins (technically a bit more - two armours and different coloured horses, but it's irrelevant) that you couldn't (or shouldn't) apply to the only two unique and cool ridable animals. It was rather useless.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Examples of DLC I think are actually worth the money, are the Fallout DLC's. With a couple of exceptions (Operation Anchorage, Mothership Zeta) they all had a significant amount of content , added a good amount to their game's world and actually lasted more than a couple of hours. Borderlands also had a few really good DLC's as well, again they actually lasted for awhile.

Agreed with most of your points, but the quote really hit the mark. Fallout 3 had some exceptional and well-spaced out DLC, none of that nickle-and-dime crap of character skins or singular weapons every week or flooding the market with high-priced, under-valued 15 minutes of additional story content...

I really do only buy the DLC I feel is worth it, but anymore, DLC is fleshing out games instead of adding to them and NOT opting in means you're missing out and you just dropped $60 for 3/4 of a game! It's frustrating, but in the end, even with Mass Effect 2, I had to say "enough is enough; I'm done buying crap for this game."

Come to think of it, it almost feels like devs nowadays are using DLC to shore up losses and expectations from constrained development times. In nearly every "making-of" commentary I've seen, I saw the teams bitching about "if we only had one more month" or "we had to cut 'x' feature to make 'y' deadline;" it almost seems like they're sweeping up the scraps from the cutting room floor and charging us top-dollar for them like it's bonus shit when in actuality, their shit wasn't together enough to give us the game they'd initially envisioned.

 

[daveman247]

I draw the line, however, at three concepts:

- Overpriced map packs that are more expensive than full-blown stand-alone games.
- "unlock" packs that just unlock stuff you can unlock in game anyway. Also known as "time-saver" DLC's. Seriously, you're paying the game to give you your rewards for playing the game.
- Buying in-game money. I've seen a few games do this, and the concept baffles me. WHO BUYS THESE?!
.

1: Truth
2: Also truth, but for some games where the unlocks are overpowered i can see why some may be tempted to do this. "I must play this game for X amount of time before i can unlock something decent and begin having fun".

3: Idiots buy them man

But yeah, i like DLC too as long as the price is right. Its when i consider it overpriced when i cry foul. A couple of hundred points for a few costumes is just silly.

And yeah like someone else said - As long as it doesnt mess with the core experience its fine.

Although i think "wepon packs" and the like should have been in the game anyway - Why wern't they there in the first place?

 

[Epona]

I actually prefer DLC that lets you buy things like level ups and money (Tales of Vesperia did that) to DLC that is game changing, single player only of course. If I can spend a few dollars and give myself 10 Levels at the beginning of the game that's tempting and it isn't game changing. You could grind those levels for free or you could add a sort of New Game + by having this DLC available.

What Bioware is doing and what they have done since DAO is the wrong kind of DLC. I think Shale is much worse than Horse Armor and I think the rest of the Oblivion DLC was pretty good. A castle, a wizards tower, etc... All completely optional and not game changing, it's convenient to have a castle to store stuff in and sleep.

I don't like DLC that takes you out of the main game, like that DAO DLC about one of the female characters. I don't recall her name, she was a rogue.

 

[AlternatePFG]

Agreed with most of your points, but the quote really hit the mark. Fallout 3 had some exceptional and well-spaced out DLC, none of that nickle-and-dime crap of character skins or singular weapons every week or flooding the market with high-priced, under-valued 15 minutes of additional story content...

To be fair, I don't have too much of a problem with the cosmetic stuff like character skins either. I think it's silly, but it's pretty much the definition of DLC that can safely be ignored. As long as the stuff is affordable, I don't really mind it.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Here is a nice quote made by Jessica Merizan, Community Manager for Bioware, on a reddit subforum where she did a ask me anything interview today.
http://www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/comments/q2sl2/i_am_jessica_merizan_community_manager_for/

"[-]jessicamerizan 191 points 4 hours ago

I think there's a lot of misinformation out there and I wish the guy who made the initial video about it would have had an open mind before jumping to conclusions based on a leak we weren't ready to address. Since I'm a BioWare employee, I know people won't automatically trust me, but I hope people will consider that it wasn't cut content from the larger game. I was in Edmonton when we were finishing the game in November/December and I was in Edmonton again last month when they were working on the Day 1 DLC. It definitely was only possible to do because the main game was in certification (which means we had to wait for people to test it and make sure everything was good etc before we could get the greenlight to sell it). I also played the game WITHOUT the DLC in my first playthrough and honestly, it's an awesome addition but I was more than happy with what I was given in the game. It's bigger and more expansive than ever. Of course, I understand the concern but I hope we can all have an intelligent conversation about it and cover what the facts are in this situation.

Hope that helps a little bit. This is an awkward format to answer this question, but I know I could explain it if you were sitting next to me on a couch with some coffee/tea

also this farther down

[-]ZombieWomble 19 points 4 hours ago

The production is one issue, but I think many more people are annoyed by the particular content of the DLC - I expect that if it was a "normal" character, like Zaeed, Shale, Sebastian or Kasumi in Bioware's other titles, it would probably have been met with a shrug and some minor moaning about greedy developers.

But the choice of character is so shocking, given the rest of the ME lore, that it's mind-boggling that it was bundled into DLC. At first glance, the character sounds like they must be plot- and lore-significant, simply because they exist, and the fact that it apparently sits outside the main plotline is baffling. Which raises the question of when the idea of this character was introduced, and if it was taken from the original plans for the main game, or not. The timing of when the team worked on it is really immaterial to its impact on the world and its lore.

So, to sum all that up in a question: There is a lot of anger about the lore surrounding this character. Is it as bad as it looks? Does this character's existence really shake the lore as much as it seems they must, or is it closer in heft to Zaeed or Kasumi?

It's sad, really, because I'm now torn - ME3 really should be a day 1 purchase, given the pedigree, but if this really is significant, plot-shaking content carved off into DLC, then that's not really something that I can get behind.

permalink
parent

[-]jessicamerizan 19 points 1 hour ago

I hope you understand that I'm in a position where to reassure you, it would require me to reveal story spoilers, something that I don't think is acceptable.

Personally, I began my career as an archaeologist (for serious!) and the events surrounding this new character speak to me. However, if it wasn't DLC, it definitely wouldn't have been in the main game. There's other things that didn't fit in the main game that may end up as future DLC.

Again, I think this is a cool edition and definitely intended as a reward for serious fans (many of whom have purchased the collector's edition so this isn't even an issue for them). However, I have played the game without it and the lore surrounding the DLC is in the game already, this character just gives their own take on it.

Was that any less vague or helpful to anyone?

 

[boag]

Can anyone top the horse armour DLC from Oblivion? Yes, no? It was the hugest waste of money I've seen so far. The armour didn't serve any purpose than to pimp out your horse somewhat

Rumble Roses Custome sets and DOAX2 Unlocked bikinis.....

 

[The Lunatic]

Generally speaking, DLC is getting way out of hand.

Overpriced maps, weapon skin recolours, generally pointless crap that could have been added as nice unlockables are instead now buyable items.

Honestly, I'd much rather gain a lot of the DLC items from ingame progress.

And including them in an expansion would probably be the best way of doing this.

 

[DoPo]

Can anyone top the horse armour DLC from Oblivion? Yes, no? It was the hugest waste of money I've seen so far. The armour didn't serve any purpose than to pimp out your horse somewhat

Rumble Roses Custome sets and DOAX2 Unlocked bikinis.....

Can you elaborate? Can't seem to google for them properly - how much did they cost? Keep in mind that while the horse armour one was $2.50, it has it's own urban dictionary entry. It's that infamous.

 

[boag]

Can anyone top the horse armour DLC from Oblivion? Yes, no? It was the hugest waste of money I've seen so far. The armour didn't serve any purpose than to pimp out your horse somewhat

Rumble Roses Custome sets and DOAX2 Unlocked bikinis.....

Can you elaborate? Can't seem to google for them properly - how much did they cost? Keep in mind that while the horse armour one was $2.50, it has it's own urban dictionary entry. It's that infamous.

240 points the unlocked bikini collection of one girl, bikinis you could unlock by playing the game, worst part is that if you unlocked it this way you screwed yourself out of the Video Gallery feature, because it didnt fullfill the normal unlocking flags.


The RRXX customes costed 80 points each, and could actually be worn by all the girls, but for each custome there was 4 repaints in shitty monocolors which you could never preview before buying..... Dont ask me how I know all this >.>

 

[BENZOOKA]

Escapist's Shamus Young talked about this DLC subject almost a year ago.

From there I can summarize my own thoughts:
It shouldn't alter the balance of the game nor be integral to the experience.

DLC is such a new phenomenon. Those kind of things used to be little things included in free patches from some developers, or as little pieces of expansion packs.

 

[TheRockerGod13]

Another one that has come up a couple of times, but not with the level of outrage, is the Catwoman DLC for Arkham City. Unlike ALL of the other DLC for that game, it was a pack that gave you basically another quarter or maybe half of the story of the main game. This was brought up in an article from Game Informer (I believe it was) that addresses a larger issue:

What are we going to do when the online support for this generation drops out? You can't even use DLC on a 360 game if there is no internet connection. I think the bigger issue to consider here, same as the article, is: all of these pieces of the story we needed to pay extra to have? One day...they're all going to disappear. Everything we shelled out a total of hundreds of dollars for to have the whole experience will be for naught.

I think THAT'S the true crime in main-story-DLC.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Another one that has come up a couple of times, but not with the level of outrage, is the Catwoman DLC for Arkham City. Unlike ALL of the other DLC for that game, it was a pack that gave you basically another quarter or maybe half of the story of the main game. This was brought up in an article from Game Informer (I believe it was) that addresses a larger issue:

What are we going to do when the online support for this generation drops out? You can't even use DLC on a 360 game if there is no internet connection. I think the bigger issue to consider here, same as the article, is: all of these pieces of the story we needed to pay extra to have? One day...they're all going to disappear. Everything we shelled out a total of hundreds of dollars for to have the whole experience will be for naught.

I think THAT'S the true crime in main-story-DLC.

Like all those games i bought for DOS? or MANY of my old windows 95/98 games that don't run properly on windows 7?

The simple fact of the matter is over time ALL your games will eventually become unplayable due to hardware/software incompatibility with future tech.

 

[TheRockerGod13]

Another one that has come up a couple of times, but not with the level of outrage, is the Catwoman DLC for Arkham City. Unlike ALL of the other DLC for that game, it was a pack that gave you basically another quarter or maybe half of the story of the main game. This was brought up in an article from Game Informer (I believe it was) that addresses a larger issue:

What are we going to do when the online support for this generation drops out? You can't even use DLC on a 360 game if there is no internet connection. I think the bigger issue to consider here, same as the article, is: all of these pieces of the story we needed to pay extra to have? One day...they're all going to disappear. Everything we shelled out a total of hundreds of dollars for to have the whole experience will be for naught.

I think THAT'S the true crime in main-story-DLC.

Like all those games i bought for DOS? or MANY of my old windows 95/98 games that don't run properly on windows 7?

The simple fact of the matter is over time ALL your games will eventually become unplayable due to hardware/software incompatibility with future tech.

When you lost the ability to play those games, you lost the whole thing, yes? You came to terms with it because the whole experience was taken and you just kind of had to go with the flow. The problem with this is that it gets taken away in parts. First, you lose what you put extra money down on over the $60 to buy the game. Then, eventually, you lose the rest of the main game.

Old games died a quick, painless death when it was time for technology to move forward. Our new games are going to die slowly and painfully while we watch companies pull the plug on our extra investments and leave us with an unfinished product.

 

[DoPo]

240 points the unlocked bikini collection of one girl, bikinis you could unlock by playing the game, worst part is that if you unlocked it this way you screwed yourself out of the Video Gallery feature, because it didnt fullfill the normal unlocking flags.


The RRXX customes costed 80 points each, and could actually be worn by all the girls, but for each custome there was 4 repaints in shitty monocolors which you could never preview before buying..... Dont ask me how I know all this >.>

OK, I think that actually sounds worse.

DLC is such a new phenomenon. Those kind of things used to be little things included in free patches from some developers, or as little pieces from expansion packs.

Well, it's not that new. Certainly has been around for almost half a dozen years, probably more, I can't remember exactly.

What I mean is that even though it's a sort of new-ish concept to pay for more content of the game that can be delivered any time anywhere (patches/mods did that before but none of them did exactly what DLCs do) it is not new enough that game companies can be excused for misusing it. It's the software world, everything is developing fast and hard The concept of adding content for a price after release is not new in that context. Abusing it is to disregard what we have so far and an insult to users.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Another one that has come up a couple of times, but not with the level of outrage, is the Catwoman DLC for Arkham City. Unlike ALL of the other DLC for that game, it was a pack that gave you basically another quarter or maybe half of the story of the main game. This was brought up in an article from Game Informer (I believe it was) that addresses a larger issue:

What are we going to do when the online support for this generation drops out? You can't even use DLC on a 360 game if there is no internet connection. I think the bigger issue to consider here, same as the article, is: all of these pieces of the story we needed to pay extra to have? One day...they're all going to disappear. Everything we shelled out a total of hundreds of dollars for to have the whole experience will be for naught.

I think THAT'S the true crime in main-story-DLC.

Like all those games i bought for DOS? or MANY of my old windows 95/98 games that don't run properly on windows 7?

The simple fact of the matter is over time ALL your games will eventually become unplayable due to hardware/software incompatibility with future tech.

Like it or not, as more functionality and content goes the way of "online," games are becoming disposable. Just as you might outgrow a pair of pants or try your best to savor the last bite of a $50 steak, in the end, you get what you pay for: a pricey experience that doesn't last forever...