Dragon Age Designer Says DLC Not Meant to Rip Off Players

[Playbahnosh]

They are lying, it's plain to see. Of course it was EA! It's always EA that does this kinda stuff, selling a half-complete game for full price, and then selling the rest of the game in tiny bits, disguised as DLC.

With Dragon Age Origins, I really believe Bioware had close to nothing to do with this player chest thing. But then why are they lying about it so boldfaced? The chest losing it's contents when the party camp changes? Bullshit! The dwarven vendor in camp always has the same wares to sell no matter how the camp changes, and it does remember what items you already bought and there is even a buyback function. The player chest is just the same, but without the actual paying for storage.

But! Even if I accept the fact, that they did not have enough time to finish that particular part, they said they intended it to be in the original game, just as the stone golem quest. They put the golem quest in for free, yet for some totally asinine reason, they put the player chest in the paying DLC. Just how stupid they think we are exactly? meh...

 

[Exyll]

This isn't rocket surgery, .

Dude, you win this entire thread right there.
I totally forgot the subject upon reading that. Anyway, they can say what they want: if it smells like and acts like a nickel-and-dime scheme...
And in today's society, you dont have to be sorry for your actions, just have to 'fake it' and everything blows away right? "No we didnt intend for this to happen! (Oh and by the way you can purchase additional points at our BioWare store, we'll even open a browser up for you")

How convenient.
I dont like the nickel and dime scheme, its like some menu:
$5 Extra armor
$6.50 Extra armor (with stats)
$7 New skill
$8.50 New level cap

What happened to expansions? When you paid 1/2 the price of the original game for about 30-50% new conent? Thats when I feel like I'm getting my moneys worth. When I've paid for one COMPLETE game and then I pay for the extras. This DLC shit feels like you buy a stripped down new car then they make you buy a backseat, windshield wipers, floormats. Make a complete product FIRST, then worry about how you're going to get your extra monies...

This isn't brain science.

 

[Exyll]

Im reading more of these posts, you pro-DLC people, please answer this:
If they ran out of time to add the DLC add ons before release of the official game, why do we now, conveniently, have it available to us ...for a small additional charge.

Car makers dont announce cars in march, then come september, tell you 'oh well we ran out of time for the automatic-transmission,suspension or bucket seats but we'll SELL it to you...for a small additional charge.

I dont think that poor time management on their part should result in a reduced product (or a 'pay me for what should be standard' ideology) on the customers part.

Or at the very LEAST, dont blatantly try to sell me shit ON DAY ONE, that should have been in my game, FROM DAY ONE.

 

[Amnestic]

If they ran out of time to add the DLC add ons before release of the official game, why do we now, conveniently, have it available to us ...for a small additional charge.

Because the game got finished and "locked" months and months ago, but wasn't released straight away? It's no huge secret that the PC version of Dragon Age got delayed by about half a year.

So what are the devs meant to do while the console version is getting ported/tested/locked?

Oh right, I remember: Making the DLC.

 

[Exyll]

And yes, BioWare is lying - the apple (Bio) doesnt fall far from the tree (EA).
So if your backer is telling you to lie, you'll still get paid...guess what you do.

BioWare you have fallen from teh grace!!!

 

[Exyll]

Still missing the point. You make a game, the original game consists of 4 parts.

Your team finishes 3 parts and your deadline has hit. That 4th part was supposed to be free...
so in effect we are rewarding them for wasting time. So now this game will make tons of cash, this will only reinforce this type of marketing for the future games. What's next? pay for level cap raise? true single player and pay for additional companions?

Whether they were too ambitious or whatever, how convenient that the piece they ran out of time on was an item that ALL players desire in rpgs...additional storage.

 

[Amnestic]

Still missing the point. You make a game, the original game consists of 4 parts.

Your team finishes 3 parts and your deadline has hit. That 4th part was supposed to be free...
so in effect we are rewarding them for wasting time. So now this game will make tons of cash, this will only reinforce this type of marketing for the future games. What's next? pay for level cap raise? true single player and pay for additional companions?

Whether they were too ambitious or whatever, how convenient that the piece they ran out of time on was an item that ALL players desire in rpgs...additional storage.

Posit: You would have no issue with this DLC if they'd released the PC version when it was finished months ago and brought the DLC out now.

As for the additional storage: Scott has mentioned numerous times that reviews he has read haven't mentioned an issue with storage space, thus I would say it's probably not a big deal.

But whatever, you're clearly convinced in your tinfoil hattery that it's all a big conspiracy by EA even though Bioware stated that it's not. Enjoy your paranoia, I'll be off having fun with the game I bought.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

The more you know!

 

[scotth266]

As for the additional storage: Scott has mentioned numerous times that reviews he has read haven't mentioned an issue with storage space, thus I would say it's probably not a big deal.

Not to mention all the people I know on Twitter/personally that are playing it told me that the inventory system is a-ok. So the reviewers didn't just forget to mention something.

Seriously people: THE LACK OF STORAGE CHESTS IS NOT A PROBLEM. If you're running out of storage space, odds are it's because you've failed to sell stuff/are hoarding items. In which case, it's YOUR FAULT. Learn to be a bit less grubby with your inventory management.

 

[JediMB]

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.

^ This was all I had to read before dismissing the entire collection of excuses as bullshit. The party camp is a constant and unchanging area of the game that just happens to be accessible regardless of where you are on the map.

And of course they'll claim that EA wasn't responsible for the DLC. If they admit it they're likely to get into legal trouble, after all.

Additionally, anyone claiming that development of the PC version ended before the team started working on the DLC can't be thinking straight, considering that the game was further developed to contain references to Warden's Keep. (And, according to one of the BW reps on the DAO forums, they were still working on the finishing touches for the game back in early October or so.)

 

[Dys]

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

Because it was developed as DLC while they were waiting for console optimisation/QA testing to finish?

Bioware has gained enough Good Karma points with me over the (many many) years to believe what they say.

That really is a stupid excuse made up by some developer. Saying that moving the player camp to another place makes the item in the chest disappear is like saying your character loses all his items when changing area.

You've seen the coding for Dragon Age? All of it? You know how every bit of code works?

Bioware were also an independant company once, they are now owned by EA. This stinks of them whoring out content that should've been included in the main game for an extra cost (really, a storage chest is pretty necissary).

Also, if the game was finished so long ago on the PC platform, why did the PC platform not get an earlier release? Games regularly get released on console before PC.... Is the gaming community still pretending that PC games need to be nerfed to balance with consoles?

I tend to think that much more is being read into this than is actually there. I've always said that DLC is something that the consumer has a choice to purchase. And just because they included extra storage capacity, doesn't meant they are trying to pick your pocket. If you've ever played Maple Story you'd know that the only way to get additional storage space in that game is to purchase it from the item shop. And it ain't cheap, and you don't get anything else with it. So I think there are far worse things that a company can do than provide a DLC package. Especially in DA:O which is a game that has "classic" written all over it.

Look, I've never bothered asking any maple story players if they've spent upwards of $100 on the games purchase, but I'm fairly sure that every single person who's played the game did so without any cost to them. Regardless of whether this DLC is right, wrong or left it cannot be compared to free MMOs that entirely rely on microtransactions to draw a profit.

 

[Amnestic]

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

Because it was developed as DLC while they were waiting for console optimisation/QA testing to finish?

Bioware has gained enough Good Karma points with me over the (many many) years to believe what they say.

That really is a stupid excuse made up by some developer. Saying that moving the player camp to another place makes the item in the chest disappear is like saying your character loses all his items when changing area.

You've seen the coding for Dragon Age? All of it? You know how every bit of code works?

Bioware were also an independant company once, they are now owned by EA. This stinks of them whoring out content that should've been included in the main game for an extra cost (really, a storage chest is pretty necissary).

Also, if the game was finished so long ago on the PC platform, why did the PC platform not get an earlier release? Games regularly get released on console before PC.... Is the gaming community still pretending that PC games need to be nerfed to balance with consoles?

Believe what you want about the EA whoring out - but Bioware really have no reason to lie. Also, I'm up the the Circle of Mages tower and I haven't once needed a storage chest. Just buy backpacks whenever they show up in shops. If necessary, abuse extra weapon slots and spare ring slots (for things like Iron Rings) to lower your weight.

Also, since the weight system is that one variety of item=one slot rather than one item=one slot, crafting a bunch of your materials into things like Lesser Health Poultices will likely lessen your burden - Flasks, by the way, don't appear to take up any weight slots either so there's no reason not to have a bunch on your person ready to use.

While I'm probably no where near the end of the game, I'm a good few hours in now and I haven't had need of any item storage. Stop hoarding your shit, give out a few of those gifts and vendor vendor vendor.

How else are you going to afford that 121g axe from that one trader?

As for the PC release - I believe it's because EA wanted to release it alongside the console version.

 

[chronobreak]

I thought we were all supposed to be on the same page with this DLC shit, what happened? Why are we arguing with each other, it's pointless. All these great minds going to waste, when we should be trying to figure out how to make these companies give us the whole game for one flat price. All you guys are arguing over semantics, this company wants you to pay for something they could give you for free, or just not give anyone at all. It's time to start speaking with our wallets, right?

 

[Dys]

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

Because it was developed as DLC while they were waiting for console optimisation/QA testing to finish?

Bioware has gained enough Good Karma points with me over the (many many) years to believe what they say.

That really is a stupid excuse made up by some developer. Saying that moving the player camp to another place makes the item in the chest disappear is like saying your character loses all his items when changing area.

You've seen the coding for Dragon Age? All of it? You know how every bit of code works?

Bioware were also an independant company once, they are now owned by EA. This stinks of them whoring out content that should've been included in the main game for an extra cost (really, a storage chest is pretty necissary).

Also, if the game was finished so long ago on the PC platform, why did the PC platform not get an earlier release? Games regularly get released on console before PC.... Is the gaming community still pretending that PC games need to be nerfed to balance with consoles?

Believe what you want about the EA whoring out - but Bioware really have no reason to lie. Also, I'm up the the Circle of Mages tower and I haven't once needed a storage chest. Just buy backpacks whenever they show up in shops. If necessary, abuse extra weapon slots and spare ring slots (for things like Iron Rings) to lower your weight.

Also, since the weight system is that one variety of item=one slot rather than one item=one slot, crafting a bunch of your materials into things like Lesser Health Poultices will likely lessen your burden - Flasks, by the way, don't appear to take up any weight slots either so there's no reason not to have a bunch on your person ready to use.

While I'm probably no where near the end of the game, I'm a good few hours in now and I haven't had need of any item storage. Stop hoarding your shit, give out a few of those gifts and vendor vendor vendor.

How else are you going to afford that 121g axe from that one trader?

As for the PC release - I believe it's because EA wanted to release it alongside the console version.

Look, I don't mean to come across all the pissed off, it certainly isn't a deal breaker and I still will end up buying it after exams (10 days), it just seems like a dick move to release something day one that is generally included (and necissary) in most similar games. Obviously I can't know until after I've completed the game, but I'm definately at the "raised eyebrows" level of caring. It is true that I do overall dislike the idea of microtransactions for DLC, I can hack it (especially if they are included in an expansion later down the track, *hint hint*) as long as it doesn't force me too buy it in order to enjoy the game.

As for the wanting to release it alongside consoles, it's fine, I'm really not that bothered. I just saw an opportunity to point out that games are often released earlier on consoles than PCs and apparently when it's conveniant to release the other way devs opt not too. Seems relevent with all the "PC gamers want/get so much more" bitching people have been talking so much lately.

 

[Amnestic]

I thought we were all supposed to be on the same page with this DLC shit, what happened? Why are we arguing with each other, it's pointless. All these great minds going to waste, when we should be trying to figure out how to make these companies give us the whole game for one flat price. All you guys are arguing over semantics, this company wants you to pay for something they could give you for free, or just not give anyone at all. It's time to start speaking with our wallets, right?

People did speak with their wallets.

The DLC made a million in the first week. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.155533]

Can't speak much louder than that.

Look, I don't mean to come across all the pissed off, it certainly isn't a deal breaker and I still will end up buying it after exams (10 days), it just seems like a dick move to release something day one that is generally included (and necissary) in most similar games. Obviously I can't know until after I've completed the game, but I'm definately at the "raised eyebrows" level of caring. It is true that I do overall dislike the idea of microtransactions for DLC, I can hack it (especially if they are included in an expansion later down the track, *hint hint*) as long as it doesn't force me too buy it in order to enjoy the game.

As for the wanting to release it alongside consoles, it's fine, I'm really not that bothered. I just saw an opportunity to point out that games are often released earlier on consoles than PCs and apparently when it's conveniant to release the other way devs opt not too. Seems relevent with all the "PC gamers want/get so much more" bitching people have been talking so much lately.

You can - and more than likely will - enjoy the game without Warden's Keep. I'm having an absolute blast at the moment and the only reason I'm here posting and not playing it is because I'm chatting to a certain foxy lady at the moment.

And yeah, console/PC back-and-forth banter is annoying and I would really hope people could just shut up about it all. It doesn't help when they optimise games for one platform or another and then everyone else gets shoddy/late ports (Gears of War, Assassin's Creed, Resident Evil 4, pretty much every RTS to head to a console ever.)

 

[chronobreak]

People did speak with their wallets.

The DLC made a million in the first week. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.155533]

Can't speak much louder than that.

I noticied, it is on the first page as well. I was more referring to DLC in general, not just this game. It can't be just me that misses the days of expansion packs (and it isn't based, on what I've already read on this thread), and getting what you pay for and that's that. Release a finished game, everyone pays the already ridiculous sixty dollars (in some cases), and everyone has the same experience regardless of if they want to keep plunking their money down or not. But, that is just my opinion. Just like no matter how you slice it and let people into the worlds of developers, it is going to be some people's opinion that this is shenanigans, and if they really, really wanted to, they could have planned and gotten their ducks in a row to make sure this was included in the game. If from day one, this is something they were hell-bent on having in the game, it would have been there.

 

[scotth266]

People did speak with their wallets.

The DLC made a million in the first week. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.155533]

Can't speak much louder than that.

I noticied, it is on the first page as well. I was more referring to DLC in general, not just this game. It can't be just me that misses the days of expansion packs (and it isn't based, on what I've already read on this thread), and getting what you pay for and that's that. Release a finished game, everyone pays the already ridiculous sixty dollars (in some cases), and everyone has the same experience regardless of if they want to keep plunking their money down or not. But, that is just my opinion. Just like no matter how you slice it and let people into the worlds of developers, it is going to be some people's opinion that this is shenanigans, and if they really, really wanted to, they could have planned and gotten their ducks in a row to make sure this was included in the game. If from day one, this is something they were hell-bent on having in the game, it would have been there.

Did you read this post? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.154083#3719305] It pretty much explains why planned content for a game winds up as DLC.

Also, DLC IS expansion packs. It's just a more developer-friendly version. They can make it big or small, charge what they want for it, and it allows them to do more than they could with expansions in general. There is actually DLC out there, such as Oblivion's Shivering Isles or GTA4's LATD/BOGT, that IS considered to have enough content be a legitimate expansion.

In the end, it just comes down to what your perception of an "expansion" is. You're accustomed to the older version of the definition, and as such would probably see DLC like the two I just mentioned as worthwhile. Others like the idea of smaller clumps of content, released more frequently for a lower price. That's stuff like Warden's Keep.

 

[LeonLethality]

unless its something huge for a reasonable price or small and free stuff I find all DLC ripoffs...

 

[teisjm]

While the game itself is prolly long enough without DLC to be sold at full price, i wonder how many other games will follow.

Maybe the next decent-but-7-hours-long game released by some company will be cut, and the rest will be released as DLC.

I really hope game companys will see the rage that comes from stuff like this and instead look at blizzard, who is still planning to release yet another free content patch for diablo 2 (the last one i've read) even though the game is close to 10 years old. Now thats how to get loyal fans, who will almost get arections every time theres news about Diablo 3.

Theres still lots of companies beeing cool to their audience, so while some charges for everything from new outfits to a few new maps, some add maps, items, and a whole lot of otehr stuff for free.