Dragon Age

[Velorath]

Back on the subject of Dragon Age, apparently if you want the amazing feature known as "permanent inventory space" you have to pay $7 for DLC.

Ha. Kudos to Bioware. It takes real balls to leave out major gameplay features so that you can gauge people for them separately.

Source? Because I have no idea wtf you are talking about. If Sheepherder is correct and that is what you are talking about, I don't see what the big  moment is with having a stash that is separate from your inventory to cram more shit in to.

Keep in mind that Margalis likely has no intention of purchasing this game anyway since he doesn't seem too fond of Bioware or RPG's with "western art styles".  He's just looking for something to gripe about.

[Elerion]

Developers charging for added content developed after the game went gold is fine by me. As long as bug fixes and "promised on the box"-content is still free, that is.

[dusematic]

So is this game going to be legit or what?  I have a feeling it's going to be corny as fuck.

[FatuousTwat]

Hmm... I guess I'm with Fatuous here.. Because if you think about it, umm.. Well, actually, I don't know/remember. Most games don't have a permanent inventory, do they? Definitely not bank spaces and stuff, like you'd see in an MMO (and even that isn't permanent). So maybe the pricing is justified...

The only games I can remember having a separate inventory are Diablo 2, Titan Quest, and a German action RPG sequel which came out early this year that I wasn't a big fan of. Of course I'm missing some, but it doesn't seem like they usually even occur in a "traditional" RPG.

[Elerion]

To be fair, I think all the BG/NWN games allowed you to leave shit in containers in your house/castle/other private area and pick it up later.

Of course, DA may allow that as well, only that you need the DLC to have an "intended place" for it.

[FatuousTwat]

To be fair, I think all the BG/NWN games allowed you to leave shit in containers in your house/castle/other private area and pick it up later.

Of course, DA may allow that as well, only that you need the DLC to have an "intended place" for it.

Ah yeah, for sure. Even the keep you eventually win in BG2 doesn't really have any specific place to put loot, does it?

I was just referring to games that actually had a kind of mechanic built in, where your stash follows you around from area to area.

[Sheepherder]

Developers charging for added content developed after the game went gold is fine by me. As long as bug fixes and "promised on the box"-content is still free, that is.

I mean, the stash only makes it a $72 game, right?  And it's not like they're crippling their game to gouge you or anything.

[Venkman]

Source.

Called the Warden's Keep, the DLC will add a dungeon-based quest to the game along with six new abilities, a variety of items, and a base where players can trade with merchants. It will feature a supernatural storyline set in an ancient--and possibly haunted--fortress once used as a redoubt by the Grey Wardens, the ancient order at the center of Origins' main storyline.
...
The Warden's Keep will be available for MSP 560 ($7) on Xbox Live Marketplace and $7 on the PC on November 3. It will cost the same price on the PlayStation Store when the PlayStation 3 version of Dragon Age goes on sale later in November.

Nothing in there about permanent storage being cockblocked by $7. Merchant trading sounds more like the D2 hub than anything else. So if it's persistent, just drop the stuff on the ground

As to RPGs and storage space, I can't think of a recent one that didn't have it. Maybe I'm misrememberating, but ME and Fallout 3 both did.

[Sheepherder]

No, not necessarily permanent storage being cockblocked, but then the alternative is just as likely.  Besides which, I don't think it would be a selling point otherwise.  Then again, even if it isn't, they still went and made a whole bunch of other shit and segmented it into DLC even before the game was launched.  It's not even a system-specific "Microsoft funded our extra development time" thing (which I understand), they just want to stick their gnarled cock in your eye socket and expect you to suckle their balls while they do it.

EDIT: Yes, that's two orifice-fucking jokes in one night, I'm just not good with making new material.  Haemish?  Can I get your creativity in here?

[Venkman]

Actually, I'm laughing now because your screenshot DOES show permanent storage is behind a $7 cockblock 

And yes, it's about the money grab. You don't need to make an MMO to monetize like an MMO.

[Margalis]

The only games I can remember having a separate inventory are Diablo 2, Titan Quest, and a German action RPG sequel which came out early this year that I wasn't a big fan of. Of course I'm missing some, but it doesn't seem like they usually even occur in a "traditional" RPG.

There's not really a difference between a separate inventory and nearly unlimited personal space. The problem here is that apparently space in DA is rather limited, which is a fine game design decision, but not fine when the decision was made so that they could sell you a woven basket on launch day.

Selling people a place to put their shit is basically saying "yeah, we know organizing your stuff is a pain in the ass in this game. We could fix that for another $7" And this isn't an MMO where more storage means server side space, database concerns, or other things that could justify any real price.

A game where you can only carry a few items is cool with me. A game where you can carry some items and leave some others lying around in random barrels is cool too. But once you give people the option of buying proper storage you're admitting what they get out of the box is not sufficient for the game that you've made. I am not a fan of DLC but to me DLC works best when it's a cosmetic feature or a feature that only certain people are interested in. (Or something like a mini expansion) Launch day DLC that includes features that were purposely withheld from the game is incredibly lame.

Resident Evil 1 has a separate inventory. That's a DLC feature now?

It's kind of sad how quickly people have accepted DLC when 95% of it is total bullshit. But at least things like $100 worth of alternate paint jobs in Ace Combat are completely inconsequential. Whereas this encourages the level scripters to put in more loot than players can reasonably manage knowing that DLC is available. It's in their financial best interest to design the game in a way that makes it a pain to play without DLC.

I suspect this sort of thing is going to become increasingly common - games that are overly grindy if you don't purchase XP potions, golf courses that are unreasonably difficult if you don't buy DLC clubs, character models that all look drab if you don't purchase extra costume items. Way too much DLC these days comes with a built-in financial incentive to sabotage what comes in the box.

Developers charging for added content developed after the game went gold is fine by me.

Bioware is selling 2 or 3 different launch day DLCs. There is absolutely zero chance that these were developed after the game went gold. (Has it even gone gold?) Whoever programmed the incredible "basket where you put stuff" DLC feature was working on it at the same time that other programmers were working on the game itself. Speaking of financial incentives again, right now the best time to bring out DLC for a game is as close to possible to the release date while it's still fresh in people's minds, creates more excuses to issue press releases and fuel launch day hype, and is likely to get in people's hands before they're done with the game.  Which means there is an incentive to take people off of the game to work on DLC instead.

To be fair this is hardly a Bioware-specific problem, I just found this a particularly ridiculous recent example. A simple feature that most players obviously want is IMO a terrible feature to put in launch day DLC from the perspective of the consumer.

Executive summary: fuck DLC, but especially "pay us to make the game suck less" DLC.

[Sheepherder]

Well to be fair, some games allow you to just dump shit on the ground and call it storage.  But this doesn't look like one of them.

[FatuousTwat]

The only games I can remember having a separate inventory are Diablo 2, Titan Quest, and a German action RPG sequel which came out early this year that I wasn't a big fan of. Of course I'm missing some, but it doesn't seem like they usually even occur in a "traditional" RPG.

There's not really a difference between a separate inventory and nearly unlimited personal space. The problem here is that apparently space in DA is rather limited, which is a fine game design decision, but not fine when the decision was made so that they could sell you a woven basket on launch day.

Selling people a place to put their shit is basically saying "yeah, we know organizing your stuff is a pain in the ass in this game. We could fix that for another $7" And this isn't an MMO where more storage means server side space, database concerns, or other things that could justify any real price.

A game where you can only carry a few items is cool with me. A game where you can carry some items and leave some others lying around in random barrels is cool too. But once you give people the option of buying proper storage you're admitting what they get out of the box is not sufficient for the game that you've made. I am not a fan of DLC but to me DLC works best when it's a cosmetic feature or a feature that only certain people are interested in. (Or something like a mini expansion) Launch day DLC that includes features that were purposely withheld from the game is incredibly lame.

Ok, I get your point much better now. I wasn't aware that the game had a limited backpack, I figured it would be more along the line of something like Mass Effect, and have more space than I would ever know what to do with. I was thinking that this was just another case of someone jumping on the hate bandwagon that seems to crop up around here every once in a while, but it wasn't.

I do agree with what you have said, but for some reason, my DLC rage over this is lessened by the fact that the 7 bucks isn't just this chest to cram your unused shit it, but also a quest to obtain a keep, and (at least I would hope) some customization options for said keep. That being said, fuck DLC and I'm not gonna be buying it.

[tmp]

So is this game going to be legit or what?  I have a feeling it's going to be corny as fuck.

Couple early (p)reviews out there are highly positive about the quality of plot, writing, offered choices etc. Words like "RPG of the decade" and "easily BioWare's best RPG" been thrown about. It's also apparently pretty hard, none of the modern faceroll to victory stuff.

[Venkman]

It's kind of sad how quickly people have accepted DLC when 95% of it is total bullshit.

It is. But they're not asking our opinion before they put it out either And the reason companies keep doing it is because a) it's really cheap to give it a shot; and, b) enough people pay for it to retroactively show a demand.

New business opportunities aren't just created because people want something. They're often created because a company convinces the people to want something.

[Elerion]

Developers charging for added content developed after the game went gold is fine by me. As long as bug fixes and "promised on the box"-content is still free, that is.

I mean, the stash only makes it a $72 game, right?  And it's not like they're crippling their game to gouge you or anything.

No, it makes it a $57/€57 game (Normal edition plus DLC) or a $65/€55 game (Digital Deluxe Edition - don't ask me why the US markup is so much higher than the EU one) if you consider the DLC essential. Even assuming the "stash" you get with the DLC is the only place you can store items conveniently, there's more content in that DLC as well.

Bioware is selling 2 or 3 different launch day DLCs. There is absolutely zero chance that these were developed after the game went gold. (Has it even gone gold?) Whoever programmed the incredible "basket where you put stuff" DLC feature was working on it at the same time that other programmers were working on the game itself. Speaking of financial incentives again, right now the best time to bring out DLC for a game is as close to possible to the release date while it's still fresh in people's minds, creates more excuses to issue press releases and fuel launch day hype, and is likely to get in people's hands before they're done with the game.  Which means there is an incentive to take people off of the game to work on DLC instead.

The content development was apparently finished back in April or whatever when the PC version was done and intended for release, and the delayed release until now has been for porting to consoles. Also, this board's resident company employee posted "hypothetically" that their games go gold 1-4 months before launch. The Stone Giant stuff was originally intended to be in the game afaik, it just wasn't finished in time - but they are giving that one away for free with new games.

It's funny how there's some arbitrary line between DLC and expansions. Blizzard releases an expansion a year after game launch at $40? Cool beans! Bioware releases DLC content on day one for $7? God damn moneygrabbers are killing the industry! I guaran-fucking-tee you that LoD and Frozen Throne had seen more development time before the base game launched than what Warden Keep has.

[tmp]

It's funny how there's some arbitrary line between DLC and expansions. Blizzard releases an expansion a year after game launch at $40? Cool beans! Bioware releases DLC content on day one for $7? God damn moneygrabbers are killing the industry! I guaran-fucking-tee you that LoD and Frozen Throne had seen more development time before the base game launched than what Warden Keep has.

They have also seen a lot of development time after the base game was launched. Like, a year of it, making it physically impossible to merge with the base game. While the "day 1 DLC" is well, done and all ready to be included in the core package.

I'm fairly sure if Blizzard tried to launch simultaneously the base game and the "expansion" with the final 10 levels for extra $40 you'd see people equally if not more annoyed about it.

[Elerion]

But they could have used that development time to create additional content for the base release, instead of spending that development time on the expansion before release.

Releasing Day 1 DLC is a poor PR move by Bioware/EA for sure, but there's no more reason this should be free than Blizzard's (or whoever's) expansions.


Look at three different theoretical business models for game design:
a) Design the game until gold, then stop developing content for it
b) Design the game until gold, then start working on the $40 expansion to be released a year after launch
c) Design the game until gold, then start working on 4 pieces of $10 DLC, released gradually over the next year

Why should option c force you to give that added development time to the consumer for free (relative to the other two models)? It looks bad when the game launch is delayed and you suddenly have DLC available on day 1, but there's still nothing evil about that business model.

And as a gamer, I would rather have the DLC on day 1 than them artificially delaying it a couple of months to avoid money grabbing criticism.


If you feel the game isn't worth regular retail price without the DLC, don't buy it. The bitching about the business model needs to stop - it's a perfectly fair model, vote with your wallet.

[Sheepherder]

No, it makes it a $57/€57 game (Normal edition plus DLC) or a $65/€55 game (Digital Deluxe Edition - don't ask me why the US markup is so much higher than the EU one) if you consider the DLC essential. Even assuming the "stash" you get with the DLC is the only place you can store items conveniently, there's more content in that DLC as well.

This DLC isn't included in deluxe by their own account, the other ones are (free download or with a product key in the box).  So great, you're back to $57 or $72 respectively, like I said it was.  But don't mind me, I'm clearly not yearning for the taste of salty fleshsack in my mouth, which means I'm an irrational hater.

But do tell us how exactly you know that TBC and/or Wrath content was in development in 2004.  I'll wait.

[tmp]

Look at three different theoretical business models for game design:
a) Design the game until gold, then stop developing content for it
b) Design the game until gold, then start working on the $40 expansion to be released a year after launch
c) Design the game until gold, then start working on 4 pieces of $10 DLC, released gradually over the next year

There's also:

d) Design the game until gold, then work on day 1 patch that fixes and further polishes your product.

this i'd figure can be especially valuable when your base game has obvious issues with quality of some of its content. Improved base experience generally translates to more favourable reviews, and these in turn to more sales and wider base for the DLC you might want to release then?

Why should option c force you to give that added development time to the consumer for free (relative to the other two models)?

It doesn't "force", but it's effectively a choice between generating extra goodwill for your company vs creating resentment towards it as the customers feel (right or wrong) being ripped off and perceive your company as unnecessarily greedy. To a degree, this could be seen as a decision between long term and short term profits.

Also, i'd wager your option c) wouldn't actually create any discontent if it was carried out 'to the letter' so to speak, i.e. these $10 add-ons were released 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after the core game launch. It's purely the timing here that creates negative impressions.

[Elerion]

This DLC isn't included in deluxe by their own account, the other ones are (free download or with a product key in the box).  So great, you're back to $57 or $72 respectively, like I said it was.  But don't mind me, I'm clearly not yearning for the taste of salty fleshsack in my mouth, which means I'm an irrational hater.

Hurr hurr, I'll just make a penis joke instead of checking my facts! Then I win the forum war! RARR!


Warden's Keep is included in the Digital Deluxe Edition. It's not included in the boxed collector's edition, but that one contains all the regular assorted CE goodies.
Sauce at D2D. EA Store and Steam store will tell you the same, but I can't link to those because they automatically redirect me to the Norwegian versions of their pages even through google cache.

But do tell us how exactly you know that TBC and/or Wrath content was in development in 2004.  I'll wait.

First, I was talking about the expansions to their non-MMO games. MMOs are a different beast entirely because you pay a monthly fee for content updates.
But no, I can't give you a source. Feel free to believe development started on Frozen Throne in July 2002, with beta starting in February 2003 if you want. You can make another penis joke too.

[Elerion]

Look at three different theoretical business models for game design:
a) Design the game until gold, then stop developing content for it
b) Design the game until gold, then start working on the $40 expansion to be released a year after launch
c) Design the game until gold, then start working on 4 pieces of $10 DLC, released gradually over the next year

There's also:

d) Design the game until gold, then work on day 1 patch that fixes and further polishes your product.

this i'd figure can be especially valuable when your base game has obvious issues with quality of some of its content. Improved base experience generally translates to more favourable reviews, and these in turn to more sales and wider base for the DLC you might want to release then?

Yeah, that's another option. It may have been a better choice to give the first DLC away for free, even if that differed from the business plan. Note that they probably already have a free day 1 patch that "fixes the product". The DLC is added content.

It doesn't "force", but it's effectively a choice between generating extra goodwill for your company vs creating resentment towards it as the customers feel (right or wrong) being ripped off and perceive your company as unnecessarily greedy. To a degree, this could be seen as a decision between long term and short term profits.

I agree.

Also, i'd wager your option c) wouldn't actually create any discontent if it was carried out 'to the letter' so to speak, i.e. these $10 add-ons were released 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after the core game launch. It's purely the timing here that creates negative impressions.

I agree that it would generate much less outrage and probably be a better PR move. But knowing what you know now, would you rather have Warden's Keep as DLC now or in 3 months?

[Yoru]

Bruce, is that you?

[Kageh]

But do tell us how exactly you know that TBC and/or Wrath content was in development in 2004.  I'll wait.

First, I was talking about the expansions to their non-MMO games. MMOs are a different beast entirely because you pay a monthly fee for content updates.
But no, I can't give you a source. Feel free to believe development started on Frozen Throne in July 2002, with beta starting in February 2003 if you want.

While I don't know about the facts with Blizzard, yet personally doubt Wrath/TBC was ready in 2005 - let aside the fact that apparently some of the zones were in the original scope of the game - the sympathy/antipathy reception of the pricing decision will boil down to "How plausible can you make the fact that it has taken you extra effort to develop what you are charging extra" vs. "You just split some of the already existing byproducts from the original project scope and want to greedily cash in on them".

I don't have a problem accepting that something with a scope like Frozen Throne was done with a separate team, separate resources, based on an entirely new business case but *maybe* in a timeframe somewhere within vanilla WC3 development. (Wasn't WC3 2001 though?) That is why it also probably cost half of the price of  the vanilla WC3 box, because it offered comparable content but with probably vastly reduced production costs since you could reuse the tools, the engine and the other results of the WC3 development process. Blizzard needs to earn some money too!

Most people, however, believe that in this case, something like an extra "quest" available as DLC for DA should have been in the original product scope, should have been managed and produced in time for retail release, should have been calculated in the business case that led to the original pricing and thus, should be either included in the box release, or available for free at launch. This leads you to the discussions of greedy vs. not greedy policy, no matter how valid your lucid statement about 40$ large expansion vs 4x10$ byte-sized DLC is - and I do think you are actually correct there, number-wise.

My personal opinion regarding the DLC is that I'll have a look, if I don't feel like buying, I won't. I generally have no gripe with Bioware beeing greedy (yet). That might change, depending on the DLC quality/size/pricing.

[AutomaticZen]

This DLC isn't included in deluxe by their own account, the other ones are (free download or with a product key in the box).  So great, you're back to $57 or $72 respectively, like I said it was.  But don't mind me, I'm clearly not yearning for the taste of salty fleshsack in my mouth, which means I'm an irrational hater.

Interesting.  It's included in Steam, D2D, Gamestop's Digital Deluxe Editions (same price as the boxed Collector's Edition).  It never occurred to me that the CEs wouldn't have it.  Weird.  Of course, it's not like I can preorder the boxed edition anymore anyways.  Buy it online and save yourself the heartache.

[Elerion]

Boxed CE doesn't have it because the price mark-up is already covered by physical goodies.

Digital version obviously doesn't have said goodies, so to defend putting a CE pricing on it, they include the DLC.

[tmp]

I agree that it would generate much less outrage and probably be a better PR move. But knowing what you know now, would you rather have Warden's Keep as DLC now or in 3 months?

I have rather weird approach to playing these RPGs, i think -- i'm very story-oriented so typically i play them just once (rarely twice if there's lot of branching) and the way the playthrough goes is what i choose to remember as "that's how things happened" for some fond recollection later. Based on this, i'd say the DLC released few months after launch is more preferable, because --combined with news the game was expanded-- it may give me incentive to replay the game and experience somewhat different story. While having it available on day 1 i'm more likely to just skip it (as, since it's excluded from the core package, it's not part of the core story in my eyes)

But ultimately i reckon i'm just not good target for DLC in RPG games. I'd much rather play/experience new stories even in the same settings, than replay what's pretty much the same plot but with some little extra toppings.

[Sheepherder]

Warden's Keep is included in the Digital Deluxe Edition. It's not included in the boxed collector's edition, but that one contains all the regular assorted CE goodies.
Sauce at D2D. EA Store and Steam store will tell you the same, but I can't link to those because they automatically redirect me to the Norwegian versions of their pages even through google cache.

But do tell us how exactly you know that TBC and/or Wrath content was in development in 2004.  I'll wait.

First, I was talking about the expansions to their non-MMO games. MMOs are a different beast entirely because you pay a monthly fee for content updates.
But no, I can't give you a source. Feel free to believe development started on Frozen Throne in July 2002, with beta starting in February 2003 if you want. You can make another penis joke too.

• Your link is broken.
• TFT wasn't exactly huge.  Depending on what went into the first beta release I could believe that timeline easily enough if Blizzard immediately moved the design team to expansion development while they were still pressing RoC disks or whatever.  Which is different than selling misc game bits that are not significant expansions on day one.
• The free campaign download and assorted content that came with/after TFT says hai.
• Please explain the suggested lack of "permanent storage" elsewhere in the game if this wasn't a planned "let's cripple our game" douche maneuver.  Rather than a "Development, stop playing with your pud and do something useful while we're pressing disks." maneuver.
• I'm wondering whether that one "free" DLC is going to cost money once the boxed game has it's first price drop.
• Penis.

[Sky]

So is this game going to be legit or what? 

Actually, it's illegit and on a very special episode of Maury.

Also, you people need to unbunch your frilly bloomers. The game will probably be just fine without the DLC. So ignore it and enjoy the game. Or don't.

Is this the campaign where you make yourselves feel better about your eventual decision to pirate the game to stick it to the man? Maybe - just maybe - DLC and RMT are a means to combat flat pricing on pc games for the last 15 years, no adjustment for inflation. I don't hear much bitching about all those $60 console games. And you don't even get some little tidbit for the extra money.

I guess I just can't get past the part where there is sturm und drang over the completely optional DLC. Don't like it, don't buy it. Meanwhile, quicherbichen.

[Sheepherder]

Is this the campaign where you make yourselves feel better about your eventual decision to pirate the game to stick it to the man?

It took my satellite connection four days to download Planescape: Torment.  So no, but nice try.

[Murgos]

This thread is all nice and frothy. Some of you should go shave your neckbeards, the hairs are getting a little long and have crumbs in. Boo-Hoo, You have to keep stuff in your inventory, how will you survive without the cool inventory stuff the rich kids have?

I posted earlier that I was entirely against day 1 DLC, but this argument is pretty stupid.

[AutomaticZen]

The DLC situation from Bioware:

The Warden's Keep was created by members of the DAO team while the rest of the team worked on finishing the PC and console versions. It was never in the core game and has been added in once the core game is complete. This extra team is working on more DLC for the coming months. We have lots of plans in the works for coolness to come. 

Shale (the Stone Prisoner) WAS originally going to be in the core game. However, Shale was cut as the team could not get things such as pathfinding, etc working correctly in time to meet our projected release date. Back when DAO was going to be released back in the spring of 2009, the decision was made to cut him. Since the team had extra time once the release date was moved to November, the Dev team worked to fix the outstanding issues and included this back into the game as Day 1 DLC.

Blood Dragon Armor. This was added in a few months ago as a cool way to tie both Dragon Age and Mass Effect together.

On inventory stuff:

Quote: Posted 10/09/09 22:32 (GMT) by daem3an
How does shared inventory work with temporary or plot-mandated party members? If I give them a cool/rare/valuable item, and they leave the party later while wearing it, is it gone forever?

No. If you give an item to a temporary character and they leave/die, you automatically get the items back.

Quote: Do they even have access to the group inventory?

Yes, you can give them any item you want(as long as they meet the requirements to use it).

Quote: How does that work with party members who later get left at the camp?

If you equip an item to a character, but the character is not with you, you have no access to that item. You would have to go back to that character to get it.

Quote: Is it possible to leave items on the ground or in containers (no practical reason to without a weight limit, but) - what if I accidentally leave my sword in Morrigan's tent?

If you leave items in a random chest, tent, barrel, etc it will get taken by someone else before you go back for it. There are storage crates at camp to let you store items.

Quote: I'm assuming you can't switch armor from your inventory while in combat, what about weapons or shields (other than the two hotbar weapon sets)? Can I change the hot slotted weapons/items while in combat?

You can change weapons, shields ammunition (arrows, etc) while in combat. The hotkey makes things easy to go between 2 sets, but you can access the inventory screen and make changes that way if you prefer.

Quote: Can I loot a fallen enemy (or friend) while hostiles are around and equip others with their better stuff? In the demo I played I *think* I remember equipping armor in battle, as I was sleeping in my drawers when attacked, but that may have been a special circumstance.

You can loot while in combat. You never know if you'll find an item or potion you need right away.

Hope this helps.

Oddly enough, those on the forums seem angry that the DLC allows a larger inventory.

[Sheepherder]

Okay, I'm lost, so why is "zomg storage" a feature again, now that it apparently shows up in all of your camps?

[AutomaticZen]

Okay, I'm lost, so why is "zomg storage" a feature again, now that it apparently shows up in all of your camps?

Perhaps it gives you more?  You have 100 slots total without it, it gives you 125 with it?  *shrug*

Probably just marketing padding it out.  I mean it's better than the first Mass Effect DLC list:

Introduces a new race: The vile batarians
New achievement to unlock
Explore a new uncharted world
Find it on Xbox LIVE Marketplace for 400 MS points
Approximately 90 minutes game time

Had it not been free on the PC, I would've been insulted by it.

[Sheepherder]

Okay, from this I garner that Bioware's marketing division should be eaten to put their valuable proteins and lipids to better use than they currently are.