Hey Bioware, what's up with all the free DLC?

[4173]

Random element is a completely separate and irrelevant issue to what i said.

But even with the benefit of changing the argument into something completely different you fail to be factually correct.

Heck, even with their random elements you were at least given a general guarantee that what you got would be a higher tier than what you started out with. In Mass Effect though you are LITERALLY gambling with your money

You can buy different tiers of quality. Making what you said factually incorrect.

Oh you mean the tiers that divides weapons that for the most part are equally balanced? Yeah that's not completely and totally arbitrary /sarcasm. Look, unless the weapons in the higher tiers are measurably better than the ones you start off with (which they aren't), then the tier system means jack shit in terms of unlocking better things for the player as it ultimately comes down to personal preference. My aforementioned friend managed to unlock every weapon and class in the game, yet he still stuck to his human soldier with a mantis sniper closer than a mother to a child, making most of the unlock packs he got completely pointless. The game would have been far more enjoyable had they used the buying system from the game's single player, as you get exactly what you pay for.

If you can point me to where I am arguing that the random element puts you in a better position as a customer and you can keep on your strawman. Untill then deal with the fact that I haven't said that. I havn't gone into the random elements effect on you as a customer. I have spend 5 posts before this stomping this strawman for another person.

Stop wasting my damm time and deal with my original quote.

That you are in a better position as a customer because the product is free. That the product is a lottery ticket doesn't change that it is free.

You don't seem to understand the concept of free. Just because you aren't paying real money doesn't mean that you still aren't paying. Time is still a valuable commodity on this planet, seeing as we humans are mortal and therefore limited in the time we have here. So how much time would you have me spend to see if I can get the unlocks I want hmm? 100 hours? 200 hours? After some point the game just gets boring because you've already played out the stuff you've got, and as I've mentioned before, unlocks that you don't want do not liven that up. And that's the issue. The game is inconsistent in it's playability, and just because it's free does not automatically give it a free pass. A lot of the games that you mentioned as being worse off than ME3's multiplayer are just as free, and at least they are consistent and have the option where if you don't want to grind all that time you can use actually money to cut through it (Which as I've proven with my first post ME3 doesn't even come close to solving). Those systems are good because it rewards paying customers without making the free customers feel at a disadvantage, as opposed to ME3 forcing both paying and free players through a crap shoot where your hoped for gun could be in the next pack, or it could be 100 packs after the point where you've given up and decided to play something else.

So let me reiterate the whole point of why I've been arguing the "Random Element" and "Bad Design" points against your "It's free" thesis:

Just because something is monetarily free, does not make it a better product than other games. When it has to deal such a broken system you will pay for those unlocks. It'll just be with life force and willpower rather than bank accounts. And at some point, getting the unlock you want stops being worth all the time and effort you've put into into it.

I think the original comparison is wrong. It's apples and oranges; the crapshoot is the feature, not a bug or problem. So the DLC is a free upgrade* to each players' slot machine.


*This does assume the player values additional fancy shit over acquiring one particular item, but that is a personal thing. Free peanuts aren't bad because some people are allergic.

anc[is]

Ah yes, "it's free, therefore completely immune to criticism" followed by a passive aggressive jab. I'm sick of being quoted, so I'll just say no matter what else you think, being random is needlessly obnoxious. If you completely ignore it's intent and say you'll never buy one, then you are worse off than having a structured unlock system.

Are decks of cards needlessly obnoxious? Are dice? Boardwalk is too obnoxious, all the squares should be "Go."

 

[Fr]anc[is]

Are decks of cards needlessly obnoxious? Are dice? Boardwalk is too obnoxious, all the squares should be "Go."

You don't have to buy poker booster packs and cross your fingers hoping you get an ace.

 

[The Heik]

Last time. Not going to say it again.

RANDOM ELEMENT = STRAWMAN

Its a different argument. You might as well go "Because it is on origin and origin is flawed from start". Completely irrelevant to what I am saying. A strawman.
You know what... you are grasping for straws.

"Its not free because it costs time."

That is dumbest thing you have said so far.

There are no free to play games then because it costs time. So ridicules.

Stop wasting my time. You have no point to what I am saying and every time I waste my time responding strawmen and ridicules bullshit.

But ok. Your points.

Its flawed from the start because it is based with a random element because gods know that random element have made games unplayable since forever.

And its not free because it costs time.

Yeah great points...

Excuse me this post isn't free. Its costing me time afterall. Derp.

Ah have you learned so little? Showing someone that they are in error is never a wasted moment.

Also thank you for deciding to stop with the Strawman argument, as you very clearly don't understand it's contextual use. A Strawman argument in general use is where an informal fallacy based upon a misinterpretation of the original argument. This is not what occurred.

Your argument was that the free nature of the game made it better because of it. I believe the direct quote was

In the end we have more power as a customer than even before. We dont have to pay anything to enjoy the product, but we can pay money to get served product at a faster rate.

I responded by giving you examples on how this was untrue due to the nature of unlock system in ME3, which not only made paying for extra content generally pointless, but by locking all that free content behind a random element it made the existance of free content rather moot as well. Even if something is free, if the content you want cannot be reliably accessed the free nature of it becomes rather insubstantial, like having to guess the right number from 1 to 100 in order to get a muffin. It doesn't really feel like you are being rewarded, merely that you got lucky.

This is not a Strawman Argument. It is using another facet of the situation to disprove your argument via showing data that conflicts with your thesis. It's debating 101

Also, you are incorrect in your belief that time is not a commodity. Ask any engineer or architect or really anyone who has to deal with large long term projects, as they will tell you time is the most precious commodity because it cannot be salvaged if it is used improperly. There is only so much time in a 24 hour cycle which we can spend upon certain things, and a very large chunk of it is used simply to maintain our mortal shells (8 hours of sleep plus eating, working etc.). If doing something does not result in some form of progress, then it has been wasted like any other asset.

 

[bigfatcarp93]

So Mass Effect 3 so far has had a bunch of DLCs so far, the bulk of which have been multiplayer expansions.

Not that I'm complaining, but jut curious, as to why Bioware has realeased all of the Multiplayer DLC, and the Extended Cut, free of charge?

TAKE A GUESS.

I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with Hulticolored Mexplosions.

 

[hazabaza1]

Damage control, I'm guessing.
Just wait until Leviathan comes out, then we'll see if it's all free.

If leviathan isn't free...I don't see a problem.

Most DLC isn't free, the fact that they're putting out all this free stuff is nice and for damage control as you put it. But I don't expect them to release a real DLC for free, they've repaired most of the damage with all the free stuff; short of sending me boxes of chocolate and hookers they can't really do much better.

I wouldn't have an issue with them making people pay for it, I probably won't play it either way, but since there's been no announcement on whether or not Leviathan will have to be paid for I was just saying we'll have to wait and see.

 

[4173]

anc[is]

Are decks of cards needlessly obnoxious? Are dice? Boardwalk is too obnoxious, all the squares should be "Go."

You don't have to buy poker booster packs and cross your fingers hoping you get an ace.

If you're playing for currency, or any other kind of wager, many (most?) forms of poker you'll be paying for the chance to win/improve your hand.

 

[The Heik]

I think the original comparison is wrong. It's apples and oranges; the crapshoot is the feature, not a bug or problem. So the DLC is a free upgrade* to each players' slot machine.


*This does assume the player values additional fancy shit over acquiring one particular item, but that is a personal thing. Free peanuts aren't bad because some people are allergic.

But it is still a slot machine. You aren't really guaranteed anything, and in a multiplayer situation that's kind of a major hindrance, especially when you have no idea what the odds are of you getting one thing or another. Like I've said in earlier posts on this thread, not being able to get a good chunk of the weapons I wanted for ME3's multiplayer actually made me disinterested the playing the game because I wasn't wiling to grind through all the possible combinations waiting for my luck to change. It's usually a sign of bad design when a player stops playing because they got frustrated and bored long before getting the content in the game they were interested in. It's all right to a have some amount of randomness in the more tertiary parts of a game (4eg specific enemy placement on the map and such), but messing with a player's capability to simply play the game seems like a self defeating design.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

None of that DLC was 'free' really. Since you had to unlock it in game and Bioware knew tons of people would spend money to unlock the packs faster. It is just a different kind of paying. The extended cut was just a slapped together piece of damage control.
Trust me, they aren't doing it to be nice, it is all the usual EA style business.

 

[The Heik]

Now you are just trolling.

My original argument.

"In the end we have more power as a customer than even before. We dont have to pay anything to enjoy the product, but we can pay money to get served product at a faster rate."

The items are not the product.

The chance to get the items are!

Which you paid $60 for, as that is the rough cost of ME3 (of which buying it is the only way you could get that chance to get the items legally)

You just contradicted yourself there matey. By your own words the "free" product that "We dont have to pay anything to enjoy" actually has a legal tender price tag. You're actively defending having to pay for content you're not necessarily guaranteed in any reasonable amount of play.

Which begs a question: Why were you arguing about free content for something you knew was not free?

 

[4173]

I think the original comparison is wrong. It's apples and oranges; the crapshoot is the feature, not a bug or problem. So the DLC is a free upgrade* to each players' slot machine.


*This does assume the player values additional fancy shit over acquiring one particular item, but that is a personal thing. Free peanuts aren't bad because some people are allergic.

But it is still a slot machine. You aren't really guaranteed anything, and in a multiplayer situation that's kind of a major hindrance, especially when you have no idea what the odds are of you getting one thing or another. Like I've said in earlier posts on this thread, not being able to get a good chunk of the weapons I wanted for ME3's multiplayer actually made me disinterested the playing the game because I wasn't wiling to grind through all the possible combinations waiting for my luck to change. It's usually a sign of bad design when a player stops playing because they got frustrated and bored long before getting the content in the game they were interested in. It's all right to a have some amount of randomness in the more tertiary parts of a game (4eg specific enemy placement on the map and such), but messing with a player's capability to simply play the game seems like a self defeating design.

That's the thing, it is...well, not tertiary, but a secondary part of the multiplayer. The game is surviving waves of enemies, not unlocking a bunch of stuff. I think it can be traced to the devs expecting players to be more focused on team success, and not highest scores. In that case the game doesn't need to be as tightly tuned for balance.

 

[tmande2nd]

To keep MP going.
A shitty horde mode only, with a horrible unlock system, and rather bland maps.

Also to generate some good will.
After they lost 90% of it when they lied to and gave the finger to their fanbase.

Just wait for it.
Levithan will hardly sell, and EA will pull the plug.

 

[PirateRose]

I had read that they are releasing the MP DLC free because they've made so much money off of MP. However, the last couple of event weekends have ended in failure. So I don't think that many people are playing.

So I'm taking a wild guess it's mostly weak people throwing down real money and a handful of parents who don't realize their spoiled brats are using their real money.

You know the usual thing with these type of gambling like games.

 

[The Heik]

I think the original comparison is wrong. It's apples and oranges; the crapshoot is the feature, not a bug or problem. So the DLC is a free upgrade* to each players' slot machine.


*This does assume the player values additional fancy shit over acquiring one particular item, but that is a personal thing. Free peanuts aren't bad because some people are allergic.

But it is still a slot machine. You aren't really guaranteed anything, and in a multiplayer situation that's kind of a major hindrance, especially when you have no idea what the odds are of you getting one thing or another. Like I've said in earlier posts on this thread, not being able to get a good chunk of the weapons I wanted for ME3's multiplayer actually made me disinterested the playing the game because I wasn't wiling to grind through all the possible combinations waiting for my luck to change. It's usually a sign of bad design when a player stops playing because they got frustrated and bored long before getting the content in the game they were interested in. It's all right to a have some amount of randomness in the more tertiary parts of a game (4eg specific enemy placement on the map and such), but messing with a player's capability to simply play the game seems like a self defeating design.

That's the thing, it is...well, not tertiary, but a secondary part of the multiplayer. The game is surviving waves of enemies, not unlocking a bunch of stuff. I think it can be traced to the devs expecting players to be more focused on team success, and not highest scores. In that case the game doesn't need to be as tightly tuned for balance.

That's a fair point, though I feel that unlocking weapons makes for better team play. From what I remember of my account, I only had two characters that I could play reliably because a lot of the weapons and classes that would have fitted my play style were blocked behind the wall of random. Any other characters I had just didn't have the oomph I needed to help the team win the day. Aside from the Geth Engineer and my beloved Human Infiltrator (who's tactical cloak is still my favorite ability in the series for what I like to call the ninja medic) I couldn't provide anything else of note to strengthen the team.

I personally feel the the unlock system from ME3's single player would have made more sense. People would get what they pay for, and no one is ever restricted in the game because of random chance. And it's not like it'd be hard to balance it out. You could restrict higher tier weapons based upon N7 level or just have them be very pricy for credits and increase with each level. One wouldn't even have to get rid of the real money option (in fact make it more desirable by making weapon unlocks with real money stay at a flat rate rather than up-gun with each weapon/class level). It just seems like a fairer way to be rewarded in the game.

Aside: BTW I think you might have misunderstood my meaning of tertiary in my last post. By Tertiary is placement of enemies, while I consider the advancement system to be a primary facet of multiplayer. Can't fight a war with no guns eh?

 

[Jake0fTrades]

Well, despite popular belief, the brains over at Bioware are actually pretty smart.

That being said, this isn't because of generosity, From Ashes wasn't free despite being available from launch day. However, they know that multiplayer is new territory for them, so charging money for the multiplayer DLC would only minimize the multiplayers already limited base. Extended cut was free because Bioware's reputation would never recover from charging fans for the ending that the fans were entitled to from the beginning.

 

[The Heik]

Now you are just trolling.

My original argument.

"In the end we have more power as a customer than even before. We dont have to pay anything to enjoy the product, but we can pay money to get served product at a faster rate."

The items are not the product.

The chance to get the items are!

Which you paid $60 for, as that is the rough cost of ME3 (of which buying it is the only way you could get that chance to get the items legally)

You just contradicted yourself there matey. By your own words the "free" product that "We dont have to pay anything to enjoy" actually has a legal tender price tag. You're actively defending having to pay for content you're not necessarily guaranteed in any reasonable amount of play.

Which begs a question: Why were you arguing about free content for something you knew was not free?

I didn't contradict myself. I didn't say that ME3 free. I said the product was free. The DLC wasn't 60$ now was it? I need to pay for the DLC? DLC isn't what they are making now? Or are you just trying to change the argument to something I didn't say again?

No I'm trying to point out that you can't consider a product free if at some point you are required to legally pay for something in order for it to be playable. The DLC may not cost a thing but you can't play it without actually having the Mass Effect 3, which cost $60 (or however much it now). It's contextually not a free product.

 

[4173]

I think the original comparison is wrong. It's apples and oranges; the crapshoot is the feature, not a bug or problem. So the DLC is a free upgrade* to each players' slot machine.


*This does assume the player values additional fancy shit over acquiring one particular item, but that is a personal thing. Free peanuts aren't bad because some people are allergic.

But it is still a slot machine. You aren't really guaranteed anything, and in a multiplayer situation that's kind of a major hindrance, especially when you have no idea what the odds are of you getting one thing or another. Like I've said in earlier posts on this thread, not being able to get a good chunk of the weapons I wanted for ME3's multiplayer actually made me disinterested the playing the game because I wasn't wiling to grind through all the possible combinations waiting for my luck to change. It's usually a sign of bad design when a player stops playing because they got frustrated and bored long before getting the content in the game they were interested in. It's all right to a have some amount of randomness in the more tertiary parts of a game (4eg specific enemy placement on the map and such), but messing with a player's capability to simply play the game seems like a self defeating design.

That's the thing, it is...well, not tertiary, but a secondary part of the multiplayer. The game is surviving waves of enemies, not unlocking a bunch of stuff. I think it can be traced to the devs expecting players to be more focused on team success, and not highest scores. In that case the game doesn't need to be as tightly tuned for balance.

That's a fair point, though I feel that unlocking weapons makes for better team play. From what I remember of my account, I only had two characters that I could play reliably because a lot of the weapons and classes that would have fitted my play style were blocked behind the wall of random. Any other characters I had just didn't have the oomph I needed to help the team win the day. Aside from the Geth Engineer and my beloved Human Infiltrator (who's tactical cloak is still my favorite ability in the series for what I like to call the ninja medic) I couldn't provide anything else of note to strengthen the team.

I personally feel the the unlock system from ME3's single player would have made more sense. People would get what they pay for, and no one is ever restricted in the game because of random chance. And it's not like it'd be hard to balance it out. You could restrict higher tier weapons based upon N7 level or just have them be very pricy for credits and increase with each level. One wouldn't even have to get rid of the real money option (in fact make it more desirable by making weapon unlocks with real money stay at a flat rate rather than up-gun with each weapon/class level). It just seems like a fairer way to be rewarded in the game.

Aside: BTW I think you might have misunderstood my meaning of tertiary in my last post. By Tertiary is placement of enemies, while I consider the advancement system to be a primary facet of multiplayer. Can't fight a war with no guns eh?

I like that change; I can't argue that the slot machine is the most elegant way to handle this, especially on its own. The slot machine could even hang around, just like TF2 has random drops along with the crafting and real money routes. Your solution has the benefit of making the N7 level and promoting characters, more rewarding.

I'm going to play armchair psychologist, but I think the devs were still thinking in RPG, more specifically MMORPG terms. If my guildmate gets a raid drop, I may be disappointed I didn't get my thing, but I still gain a little. In the FPS model, with random grouping being more common, having someone I'll never play with again get a better item doesn't help me at all (though it doesn't actually hurt me either).

As to the aside: I got it, I was just treating the base gameplay as the first level.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

None of that DLC was 'free' really. Since you had to unlock it in game and Bioware knew tons of people would spend money to unlock the packs faster. It is just a different kind of paying. The extended cut was just a slapped together piece of damage control.
Trust me, they aren't doing it to be nice, it is all the usual EA style business.

No one is doing anything to be nice, when talking business.

I doubt TF2 was made free because Valve loves us. I doubt Dota 2 will be made free for that reason. But just because they it isn't made out of love for us doesn't mean we cant get a good deal out of it.

At the end of the day you just have to look at what you get. With the ME DLC you have the option to play without paying. It is a good position to be in. Better than many other games.

I am not sure I can use "mass effect 3" and "better than many other games" in the same sentence without laughing. No amount of "free" DLC is going to make the multiplayer anything other than a very shallow horde mode that gets old after about a dozen games. That is my preference though, I am sure other people love it. Popular doesn't mean right though!