Dragon Age Designer Says DLC Not Meant to Rip Off Players

[Camarilla]

There are numerous posts regarding this on Bioware's forums from the devs themselves, and for the most part in boils down to the delay the game had. The game was meant to come out in March, but when it was delayed until November, the devs spent that time doing bug-fixing, optimisation and general polishing. Alongside this, their DLC team was working on Warden's Keep and Stone Prisoner. Stone Prisoner, for the record, was intended to be in the game originally, but they couldn't finish it before the aforementioned content deadline, so the DLC team took it upon themselves to finish it, whereas Warden's Keep is completely original content (qualifier: a storage chest was meant to be in the game, but was dropped because they couldn't get it working in time for the deadline, the DLC team had no such deadline, and so carried on creating a storage chest of their own). It simply happens that the DLC team had finished Warden's Keep and Stone Prisoner at (roughly) the same time as the game was completed, and Bioware saw no point in delaying Warden's Keep, so they released them at the same time.

If Dragon Age had been released in March, as was intended, Warden's Keep would have still been released now, but people wouldn't be complaining.

e: It appears Virgil ninja'd me, darn you!

e2: Found the developer's quote I was looking for, but it's fairly long, so:

Spoiler: Fernando Melo on Day 1 DLC

It has certainly been interesting to hear all the feedback on this. I mean that in the best of ways to be clear - it is good for us to hear your thoughts as always, and why we frequent these boards.

I'll try to recap the couple of points that keep coming up on this, and try to re-iterate some of what we've been saying...

Why is day 1 DLC not on the disc:
- Think of it this way... forget it was DLC we were making, and pretend it was a web page.

We could continue to work on that right up to game launch day and still have it ready for "day 1". But there would never ever have been a way to get that web page done back in time to make it for the dates for disc, or even the digital versions of the game, which needed to be locked many weeks (or months in some cases) in advance of game launch.

- DLC works on a relatively shorter dev cycle (months, instead of years), and the nature of it being downloadable means there are not the same lengthy lead times to get discs made and out to warehouses for retail shelves. Also, given most DLC is measured in single digit hours it is much quicker to test, the number of issues you find are lower volume which also makes for quicker turnaround of fixes, and even getting through console certification is quicker.

- That combined with the game delay from March to Nov meant we effectively caught up to the launch date. But there would still have been no way to ever get that DLC on to the discs or digi versions - it just was not ready in that kind of timeframe.

- On a similar vein, this is also the same reason why the content was not 'ripped out' at the last minute to make a quick buck. The game content was locked for the disc/digital versions, and taking something out can introduce just as many issues.


Perhaps the more relevant question is - why still choose to launch it day 1 then?

There are a lot of good reasons for this, otherwise we wouldn't have done it. Suffice it to say that it was not a decision made lightly, but I still believe it is the right one for DA even if it means taking a few lumps in the meantime for it.

For the sake of brevity, let me reverse the question. Why delay it?

Sure, the easy thing would have been to artificially just sit on the release of these for a few weeks. But then, what would be the right time? 1 week? 2, 4, 6? More importantly, and honestly now - what would have been the benefit for fans that might want DLC in doing this?

Lastly, and this is my own personal view. The day after the game launches a lot of this will largely go away as the concept of 'it came out day 1 or not' becomes less of a stigma.

The only thing that will matter is whether it was good DLC, or bad DLC.

As always if you have doubts, wait it out - you have a massive game ahead of you before you should ever feel like you "need" to dive into DLC, regardless of how compulsive you may think you are.

Listen to other forum posters' reviews. Listen to public reviews elsewhere on the net. Review the content descriptions, screenshots, and videos we'll continue to post on our sites.

That is already a lot more information than you typically will see with most DLC. And in the end, if you still do not feel it is right for you - tell us why, I'd appreciate that just as much as your feedback if you played it.

But know that you will not be missing any part of the DA:O story because of this. The game will not be less playable, or less fun, or less of an epic RPG because of this.

If you play FPS games but don't like MP, are you really going to feel like you 'missed out' or got an incomplete experience because a MP map pack DLC came out?? Really?

 

[cleverlymadeup]

I am always struck by exactly how ignorant many gamers are of how game or software development actually works. Let me try to explain this for you all:

First, any studio-developed game has a set time limit and budget for development. This should be common sense. All of the time that artists, writers, voice actors, programmers, and QA testers spend working on content is time that they are paid for.

sorry for snipping that great post, however what you did say was 100% true and i don't know why people can't understand how games work, they don't get pressed a week or so before the game is released. it's pretty sad that people don't understand how video games are made and released to the general public and they assume that everything is done at the very last minute.

tho i guess i'm a bit blessed having known a developer or two in my time and it's only the non-disc based ones that are usually working until the 11th hour on the project

 

[cainx10a]

This kind of shit is what is driving me away from gaming. DLC turns me off a product entirely. For instance, knowing what Bioware did for Dragon Age's DLC, I won't buy the game now. Call me old-school, but I don't like buying digital copies of anything. No disc, no sale. And I don't like paying for extra content in piecemeal. Give me a true expansion pack, I'll buy it, but not DLC.

The good ole days of Expansion Packs are gone, although I do miss them, I don't believe that DLCs is all that bad, when for PC gamers at least, we have the mods tools to mess around with. I mean, it's only $7 for how many hours of gameplay again? It can be all that bad to feed those who work to entertain us with extras, right?

I won't even touch the DLCs content until I'm at least done with the Redcliffe/Ealmon quest line.

 

[jamesworkshop]

The purchasing of DLC is not mandatory

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

To me, the entire Warden's Keep (and Stone Prisoner, but at least that one's free) quest feel like they've just been ripped from the game just to create some DLC.

[pointlessly long rant]

I wasn't referring to the zero-day release of the DLC as much as the fact that references to the quests still exist in the vanilla game. If the DLC quests were really added after the rest of the game was already done, these loose ends shouldn't exist. They at least strongly suggest that the DLCs were at one point part of the main game, but were removed later on.

 

[scotth266]

To me, the entire Warden's Keep (and Stone Prisoner, but at least that one's free) quest feel like they've just been ripped from the game just to create some DLC.

[pointlessly long rant]

I wasn't referring to the zero-day release of the DLC as much as the fact that references to the quests still exist in the vanilla game. If the DLC quests were really added after the rest of the game was already done, these loose ends shouldn't exist. They at least strongly suggest that the DLCs were at one point part of the main game, but were removed later on.

Did you not pay attention? For the sake of meeting deadlines, developers must sometimes omit stuff that they would otherwise put in the game. Because of that, they did not include WK in the actual game. They left the references to it in, because they knew that they might be able to work the location back into the game later, via DLC.

It's sort of like how Oblivion worked: you can hear stuff about the Shivering Isles being mentioned among the townsfolk, even if you don't have the SI DLC. The mentioning of these locations piques the interest of the player, especially when they don't find the location normally. Odds are that the SI were another part of Oblivion when the game was on the drawing board: but thanks to time constraints, Bethseda cut the idea from the game, leaving only the mentions of the location in.

In other words, WK was likely originally part of the game, was never made because they figured they wouldn't be able to meet the deadline, and was brought back as DLC thanks to the time period the developer has while the console versions get worked out.

 

[scotth266]

Ok. Lets say you went out and picked up a new novel. And say that when you got home, you found that there were three extra chapters for the book that you could download online. That makes the book you have incomplete, and any sequel novel will be based in part on the developments of those extra chapters. So no, it's not mandatory in the sense that you couldn't read the original book without them, but it does kill the experience, and any potential for enjoying the future releases.

There are two versions of The Stand, by Stephen King.

The first was released with some content cut, because his publishers felt the book was already too long.

The second was released later on thanks to sales of the first: and it included extra segments that added to the book.

Does this make the first book any less of a literary masterpiece? I think that you're confusing what Capcom did with Resident Evil 5 with what the situation actually tends to be with DLC in general.

 

[Sevre]

It's not meant to rip them off, it just does.

 

[Amnestic]

It's not meant to rip them off, it just does.

Yeah, $7 is really breaking the bank.

What's that, like...3 cups of coffee?

Ouch. How will you manage?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Said Zeoller, "I categorically reject that any features or game systems in this game were designed or removed to 'bilk users for more money.'" According to Zeoller, the player's inventory limit was never questioned during any phase of the game's development, and was added by the DLC team as a "cool feature for your own keep"; EA had nothing to do with the contents of the Warden's Keep DLC. A storage chest was implemented at one point, but players were losing their items due to the camp area constantly changing, admits Zoeller, and there wasn't enough time to fix this problem. Warden's Keep provided a permanent and central location for a storage chest to reside.

If they did finalise the game 6 months before the release and spent that time on the DLC, then why didn't they just patch the game on release day to fix the storage problem?

They way it looks now is that they ARE trying to scam more money out of people.

 

[Sevre]

It's not meant to rip them off, it just does.

Yeah, $7 is really breaking the bank.

What's that, like...3 cups of coffee?

Ouch. How will you manage?

/facepalms.

Listen, I've got a feeling this is going to turn into a massive argument so before we start lets define the purpose of DLC k bbz?

Downloadable content: "the phrase is used to refer specifically to content created for video games that is released separately from the main video game release."

We can agree that that's what it is? It's simply meant to add content to a video game. Now for an analogy, if I were to sell you a brand new computer, but not sell you the hard drive, well then I'm just as big an asshole as they are.

Don't get me wrong, some DLC is genuinely good and worth the cash, most of the time, like in the case of DA:O, it's just money grabbing.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

I still don't understand the point of Day One DLC. If it's Day One either put it on the disc, or make it free!

Put either way it's only 7$, and you can really do without that storage chest right.

 

[Amnestic]

/facepalms.

Listen, I've got a feeling this is going to turn into a massive argument so before we start lets define the purpose of DLC k bbz?

Downloadable content: "the phrase is used to refer specifically to content created for video games that is released separately from the main video game release."

We can agree that that's what it is? It's simply meant to add content to a video game. Now for an analogy, if I were to sell you a brand new computer, but not sell you the hard drive, well then I'm just as big an asshole as they are.

Don't get me wrong, some DLC is genuinely good and worth the cash, most of the time, like in the case of DA:O, it's just money grabbing.

Well first of all I build all my computers with parts I buy separately, so such a thing would never occur If I were to buy a new computer from, say, Dell, it'd say on the box that it comes with a hard drive. Thus, I expect it to come with a hard drive. If it didn't say it would come with one, I wouldn't expect one.

Thing is, Dragon Age wasn't meant to come with WK. If the PC release had hit back half a year ago when it was meant to (rather than being pushed back for console release dates), we probably wouldn't be seeing the DLC until...well, just now actually.

That's why it's DLC.

Because it was made after the game was finished.

This isn't rocket surgery, Virgil explained it all very well, far better than I could hope to do so and far less sarcastically than I would ever be.

If you're buying it for $7 and it's not bundled with the game, that sounds like you're purchasing it separately from the game's main release to me.

 

[level250geek]

To me, the entire Warden's Keep (and Stone Prisoner, but at least that one's free) quest feel like they've just been ripped from the game just to create some DLC.

If you release DLC within a month of a game's release--much less on day one--then you have spent at least a portion of that game's development cycle on said DLC, meaning that you could have implemented into the game, meaning that by charging us additional money for it you are ripping us off.

Wait, this was released on the same day as the game. Uh, so why wasn't it included in the game?

I am always struck by exactly how ignorant many gamers are of how game or software development actually works. Let me try to explain this for you all:

First, any studio-developed game has a set time limit and budget for development. This should be common sense. All of the time that artists, writers, voice actors, programmers, and QA testers spend working on content is time that they are paid for.

Because of this, there is a set amount of content that can be included in a retail game (which pretty much has a fixed price). This is typically decided early on, and as the game development progresses things are added and removed depending on the difficulties the developer encounters. At each point, a decision is made as to whether X feature is important enough to increase the time/cost of the game development - if it's not, it can get cut from the game. Many of these features might be very cool, and developers can be sad to see them cut, but this happens with every game.

At some point in the development process, the designers have to stop adding new features and content. At this point, the programmers and QA become very busy testing, optimizing, and porting content. In the past, this is the stage where most of the writers, designers, and artists either get fired or get moved to another game.

Instead of firing the content creators, many newer games are deciding to instead have them make more content, to be tested and released separately from the game as DLC. This does not mean that the time that is used to create this is free, or that it is a part of the retail game. In some cases, the designers go back to stuff that was cut from the original game and rework it and fix the problems, because they really didn't want to see it removed in the first place.

While this is happening, the final "gold" version of the game is created. This is the version that first needs to pass the console manufacturers' certifications, and then need to be sent to manufacturing. This can take several weeks. During this time, the programmers and QA can test the DLC content that the rest of the team had been working on. Because they're working off the final version of the game now, and this is just extra content, this process goes a lot faster. It is easily possible that digital content can be tested and ready to be released before the retail versions of the game are even done being manufactured.

But all this time isn't 'free' - the assumption that the people working on this content would otherwise be being paid to add things to the retail game is just stupid. That game development time and budget has already been spent - they would either be working on something else entirely, or looking for a new job.

To create this new stuff, it has to be paid for somehow. For The Stone Prisoner, it's being paid for to see if it helps make up for used game sales - a particular problem for a mostly-linear story-based RPG. The Warden's Keep content, on the other hand, is a marketing promotion to sell the more expensive digital collector's edition (sans cloth map). If you aren't 'paying' for the content in one of those two ways, then you should expect to pay for it directly.

All that you say is quite true, and more than justifies DLC that comes out when the game starts feeling a little long in the tooth--not on the day the game is released, and not for $7. No, I don't want to see good ideas go to waste. No, I don't mind paying for DLC. I have many times. But when you start on day one, you give the impression that you (knowingly) released an incomplete game. So, make the DLC and sit on it awhile. Give gamers a chance to have fun with the core product before you start advertising add-ons; or at least give the early adapters a break and let them hop on the DLC for free.

True, I don't have to buy it on the day it comes out. But when you start charging your customers extra when they just bought the game two hours ago don't be surprised when they start calling rip-off.

 

[Sevre]

/facepalms.

Listen, I've got a feeling this is going to turn into a massive argument so before we start lets define the purpose of DLC k bbz?

Downloadable content: "the phrase is used to refer specifically to content created for video games that is released separately from the main video game release."

We can agree that that's what it is? It's simply meant to add content to a video game. Now for an analogy, if I were to sell you a brand new computer, but not sell you the hard drive, well then I'm just as big an asshole as they are.

Don't get me wrong, some DLC is genuinely good and worth the cash, most of the time, like in the case of DA:O, it's just money grabbing.

Well first of all I build all my computers with parts I buy separately, so such a thing would never occur If I were to buy a new computer from, say, Dell, it'd say on the box that it comes with a hard drive. Thus, I expect it to come with a hard drive. If it didn't say it would come with one, I wouldn't expect one.

Thing is, Dragon Age wasn't meant to come with WK. If the PC release had hit back half a year ago when it was meant to (rather than being pushed back for console release dates), we probably wouldn't be seeing the DLC until...well, just now actually.

That's why it's DLC.

Because it was made after the game was finished.

This isn't rocket surgery, Virgil explained it all very well, far better than I could hope to do so and far less sarcastically than I would ever be.

If you're buying it for $7 and it's not bundled with the game, that sounds like you're purchasing it separately from the game's main release to me.

Would it not make more sense to release it at a later date, who needs DLC on day one. People haven't even had time to enjoy the game yet! Also, who the hell leaves the storage chest out of a RPG? That is money grabbing no matter how you look at it. They could've put the storage chest in the main game and oh, waited and made a better DLC maybe?

I still don't see why people bother to pay for DLC, when you buy a video game, you expect it to be finished. That's an important word there, finished. Once more for triadic effect, finished. If it has bugs or minor errors you can patch it. If you need to extend playability then it's alright to add DLC ( e.g. Broken Steel for Fallout 3), but to release DLC, something that's reserved for the end game usually, on the first day. That is low.

I expect to eat my dinner before I sleep with you .

 

[Amnestic]

Would it not make more sense to release it at a later date, who needs DLC on day one. People haven't even had time to enjoy the game yet! Also, who the hell leaves the storage chest out of a RPG? That is money grabbing no matter how you look at it. They could've put the storage chest in the main game and oh, waited and made a better DLC maybe?

I still don't see why people bother to pay for DLC, when you buy a video game, you expect it to be finished. That's an important word there, finished. Once more for triadic effect, finished. If it has bugs or minor errors you can patch it. If you need to extend playability then it's alright to add DLC ( e.g. Broken Steel for Fallout 3), but to release DLC, something that's reserved for the end game usually, on the first day. That is low.

I expect to eat my dinner before I sleep with you .

If you don't need DLC on day one, why the bloody hell are you buying it? Take the game home and enjoy it and buy the DLC later. Some people who might want it can buy it. What purpose does it serve Bioware or EA to develop WK and then sit on it for two months?

I don't know anything about the coding that went in DA:O. It's all too possible they wanted to put the storage chest in there but didn't have the time to finish it off before their deadline came up and they were forced to cut it until they could slip it into some DLC. As for your "Who the hell leaves the storage chest out?" I'm going to go with 'Bioware' does. Probably due to release dates forcing them to make cuts.

 

[RollForInitiative]

I am always struck by exactly how ignorant many gamers are of how game or software development actually works. Let me try to explain this for you all:

I'm glad you took that upon yourself to explain and appreciate it greatly. My own explanation of what we do would have included a great deal more profanity.

 

[Sevre]

Would it not make more sense to release it at a later date, who needs DLC on day one. People haven't even had time to enjoy the game yet! Also, who the hell leaves the storage chest out of a RPG? That is money grabbing no matter how you look at it. They could've put the storage chest in the main game and oh, waited and made a better DLC maybe?

I still don't see why people bother to pay for DLC, when you buy a video game, you expect it to be finished. That's an important word there, finished. Once more for triadic effect, finished. If it has bugs or minor errors you can patch it. If you need to extend playability then it's alright to add DLC ( e.g. Broken Steel for Fallout 3), but to release DLC, something that's reserved for the end game usually, on the first day. That is low.

I expect to eat my dinner before I sleep with you .

If you don't need DLC on day one, why the bloody hell are you buying it? Take the game home and enjoy it and buy the DLC later. Some people who might want it can buy it. What purpose does it serve Bioware or EA to develop WK and then sit on it for two months?

I don't know anything about the coding that went in DA:O. It's all too possible they wanted to put the storage chest in there but didn't have the time to finish it off before their deadline came up and they were forced to cut it until they could slip it into some DLC. As for you "Who the hell leaves the storage chest out?" I'm going to go with 'Bioware' does. Probably due to release dates forcing them to make cuts.

Well let me take this apart backwards.

First of all, as you said the PC version was finished quite a while ago, then surely the storage chest could've gone into that? And since when do developers give a damn about release dates? Have you not heard of Duke Nukem?!

Well I won't buy it but why the bloody hell are you releasing it? Do you actually have DAO finished and are craving for more? By sitting on something for a few months you can in fact sit back and improve it, maybe ask the community what it wants rather than stapling some sidequests together into a 7$ bundle to suck up to your publisher. I'm not blaming Bioware for releasing the DLC though, I know it was EA who forced them to do it, it's out of character for Bioware to do something like this. It's still a bad move though, it tarnishes the developers reputation not the publishers. Look at all the negativity it's already received leading to a thread on the Escapist where the devs claim they didn't mean to rip you off.