Dragon Age

[Tannhauser]

I just downloaded the Mass Effect DLC "Bring Down the Sky" yesterday.  It was one planet and took me 90 minutes to finish.  It was very good but was it $7 worth?
Well I could have watched a movie at a matinee for the same price.  So yes, I'll say it was worth it, but just barely.  They priced it well I think.

As far as Day 1 DLC I don't care as long as it's optional stuff.  Obviously if I have to buy it to play the game that's fucked up.

[stray]

I also think it's insulting that I have to worry about developers putting food on kids' tables. I mean, basically that's what some comments sound like. i.e. I should be take into account that companies need to make up costs. Puh-lease. I'm definitely positive that worrying about paychecks applies to me more than them. And the same goes for many gamers. The difference with me and others is that many gamers are stupid, single, and operate under the assumption that they have disposable income (most don't though, in practice). DLC is a phenomenon born out of the desire to tap into this idiotic "disposable income gamer" market. Not for the poor wittle game developers who will die from starvation.. I mean, if that's really the case, just give me your address then. I'll some send beans and rice.

[Velorath]

I also think it's insulting that I have to worry about developers putting food on kids' tables.

You don't need to worry about it, they do.  And that's why they set the price of the game they way they do, and plan out DLC like they do.  You need to worry about putting food on your table.  That's why you decide whether or not the game or the DLC is worth a purchase or not.  You don't have to care about the factors that cause an item to be priced a certain way.  It does help to understand that those factors exist though if you want to get into a discussion about it.

[schild]

Publishers do NOT plan DLC according to how much a developer needs food on the table.

GTFO with that.

[Velorath]

Instead of this other bullshit, at least it would just be a bitter pill to swallow. What shocks me is how unbelievably stupid you're being about it. It's like, there's a forest here, but there's no trees.

My position is simply that I don't give a shit whether a developer releases optional DLC or not, and whether or not they do it on Day 1.  You're the one on the crusade, so by all means call me unbelievably stupid just because I'm not there with you foaming at the mouth complaining something so retarded.

[rattran]

This thread is awesomely stupid.

Day1 dlc is fine, I'm simply not going to buy Dragon Age: Whatever because of it.

[Velorath]

Publishers do NOT plan DLC according to how much a developer needs food on the table.

GTFO with that.

Sorry for oversimplifying it, but I was pretty sure we were all grown up enough to just understand all the reasons companies like making a profit.  I'd take the time to spell them all out for you, but I'm heading out for work at the moment and I don't like typing up posts on my phone.

[stray]

I also think it's insulting that I have to worry about developers putting food on kids' tables.

You don't need to worry about it, they do.  And that's why they set the price of the game they way they do, and plan out DLC like they do.  You need to worry about putting food on your table.  That's why you decide whether or not the game or the DLC is worth a purchase or not.  You don't have to care about the factors that cause an item to be priced a certain way.  It does help to understand that those factors exist though if you want to get into a discussion about it.

Meh. Like I said, I think these rise in costs are simply because they think gamers are idiotic with money (and they mostly are, don't get me wrong.. It's probably a dream market for some of the people involved in marketing games). And they're cashing in on it. If there was a real expense problem, then I think the rise in the cost of games already cover that as it is. They've risen $10 more on average in just one "generation" (XBox and PS went from $50 a pop to $60).

If there are personal money problems, then they are bullshit money problems - the same bullshit problems people with a lot money complain about all the time. And these problems have nothing to do with falling on their asses. It's like this jeweler I met the other day.. He was bitching from living a $200k lifestyle to an $80k one. He wasn't in danger in any way. He just wanted to maintain a lifestyle. Credit goes to him for actually adjusting to a new lifestyle though. In the case of game companies, I don't believe that's the case. They're never inward-looking about it - and it reflects in the rise of costs in general.

Anyways, this is really beyond the scope of DLC, and I don't mean to rant. I just think that's bullshit. And yes, I have a choice. I'll give you that. I won't be buying the "inventory" DLC. Hell, I might not even buy the game either. I sorta just started reading on it.  

[Venkman]

Guys, this is really very simple. They charge because they can. Why put everything into the launch when they can monetize it after? DLCs are not sold at a 100% ratio to the initial purchase, so the first goal is to figure out how to get that up to 100%. Because the assumption that everything is going DLC was set forth long long ago. Blame MMOs if you want to blame anything. Microsoft just made it easier on their console later.

These are not money problems. This is about profit above the basic cost/profit of the initial install. That's why you'll see even more game features move to DLC, because they're going to figure out the bare minimum for a "normal" install through iteration.

And enough people are new to this business model on consoles that they'll happily pay what amounts to business R&Ding along the way.

[Ingmar]

This thread is awesomely stupid.

Day1 dlc is fine, I'm simply not going to buy Dragon Age: Whatever because of it.

Am I right in assuming for people with this position on the topic that if they sat on it for a month and then released it, that would make it OK? Or at least more OK?

I can understand drawing a line in the sand and saying "NO DLC EVER" - I may not agree personally but it is a logical position that I can understand the motivations behind. I'm not sure I understand the in-between position of getting picky about exactly when DLC becomes available.

[schild]

Am I right in assuming for people with this position on the topic that if they sat on it for a month and then released it, that would make it OK? Or at least more OK?

Yes. I don't care if they had it done on day 1. Just don't fucking tell me about it.

They charge because they can.

Darniaq, every single person in this thread and probably every single gamer out there 100% understands that.

[Reg]

This is just EA being EA. They never saw an idea they liked without completely destroying it.  It's a shame they're pissing away all of the goodwill and credibility they paid all of that money to the Bioware owners for but again that's just EA being EA.

They're going to totally overdo the whole DLC thing and I'm going to skip this game until it appears in the bargain bins.

[Khaldun]

I'm content for them to keep killing the goose until there's no more golden eggs. By this, I mean that this is ultimately a self-correcting problem. Many gamers will buy DLC because the base product pleases them. It pleases them by being a good, full-featured, complete product with a lot of content, by and large. You can try to sell DLC for an underdeveloped, buggy, content-light game but I doubt you'll get many bites even if you spread the money out and buy some game journalist mouth on your weeny little developer cock.

Now, is the game industry capable of digging their own grave, getting cozy in it and then yelling for someone to put the dirt back? Sure. Individual companies have pulled just that move, and I don't doubt that the industry as a whole can go that way as well. The companies that know enough to steer clear of releasing anemic products with a conscious intent to bring them up to speed with an extra $30.00 of DLC are going to better in the long run than those that give in to the temptation.

[Margalis]

I like that this is somehow evidence that Bioware is doing a fine thing here:

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.

Note that it doesn't include "on their weekends and evenings" anywhere in there. What that line says is that members of the team were paid to work on DLC simultaneous with other people on the team working on the core game. That is the exact meaning. It does not say "the game went gold and we were bored" or "Mark drank a fuckton of coffee and went berserk implementing crazy new features behind our backs." It says "we could have had team X work on feature Y in the core game, but then we couldn't have charged extra for it, so instead we had them work on it as a separate package." (Never mind that no swindler is going to come out and say "yeah, we're swindling you.")

That developers will take out features to sell them as DLC is "tinfoil hat" thinking? You can bet every single publisher has a cadre of people figuring out how to do exactly that. "Paranoid?" No, that's reality and there are numerous examples of it already happening. Games as little more than a DLC delivery platform is a publishing wet dream.

What barrier has to be broken for someone to revisit this thread and laugh? Features removed from sequels and sold as DLC instead? Already happened. Release day new game modes as DLC? Already happened. 1k DLC downloads that unlock content on the disc? Already happened. Full games broken into DLC that all told costs more than double the full game? Already happened.

The problem I see with DLC on Day 1?  Psychology.

No, the problem is much more concrete than that. There is pressure on dev teams to think about DLC very early in production, to plan around DLC, to purposely leave holes that DLC can fill, and to design the game in such a way as to encourage players to pick up the DLC.

If you buy a game and it has annoying greyed out menu items that do absolutely NOTHING unless you own the DLC that detracts from the boxed experience. Not only is it a constant irritating reminder to buy moar please but it clutters up the UI needlessly. In Tiger Woods half the fucking items can't be used. they just sit there adding to the loading time. If there is an option to play online and choosing it gives you a sad face and a message that you need to pay more money that actively detracts from the core game. Soul Calibur 4 shipped with an extra character slot that just sat there, looking forlorn. (Until you paid for Yoda/Darth) And in many ways DLC encourages bad design because the best DLC is DLC that people want and the best way to make them want something is to make the experience much less enjoyable without it while reminding them of that fact.

Instead of asking "how do we make the best game we can" developers are going to be increasingly asking "how do make the game that best sells DLC?" Which is not the same answer.

[FatuousTwat]

[Margalis]

I have to say I find it incomprehensible for regular consumers to quickly defend things from the corporate perspective, even adopting their language and arguments. For example Velorath arguing that the inventory thing isn't just inventory so it's real content worth $7. It's a bundle, and it's put together the same way a launch day console bundle is - something you want along with some shit a lot of people aren't going to be interested in. Same reason the downloadable track strategy for Guitar Hero was to put together 3 song bundles such that few sane people wanted all 3 songs but most wanted at least 1.

They could simply sell unlimited inventory space for $1 but probably too many would buy that instead of the $7 package.

[UnSub]

OK, so I made a game. 

One day I slip on a wet condom getting out of bed and hit my head;

Later that day I accidentally hit my head on the rim of the toilet and when I wake up,

Going outside to get the mail, I see a very attractive jogger bouncing by. 

Am I evil?

No. You sound clumsy and horny and are about to invent a time travelling DeLorean.

[stray]

I have to say I find it incomprehensible for regular consumers to quickly defend things from the corporate perspective, even adopting their language and arguments. For example Velorath arguing that the inventory thing isn't just inventory so it's real content worth $7. It's a bundle, and it's put together the same way a launch day console bundle is - something you want along with some shit a lot of people aren't going to be interested in. Same reason the downloadable track strategy for Guitar Hero was to put together 3 song bundles such that few sane people wanted all 3 songs but most wanted at least 1.

They could simply sell unlimited inventory space for $1 but probably too many would buy that instead of the $7 package.

Pretty much agree with you on everything.

The only thing I'd defend from a corporate perspective (somewhat) is that I forgot that Bioware = EA nowadays. I forgot that this was an EA game. In which case, yes, I wouldn't doubt that some of the developers could use some beans and rice. He'll I'll make some of them sushi. My treat. Sorry for the hard times guys. And the 80 hour work weeks.

There's a lot of money being made, but I'm not sure "happiness" is trickling down to these guys specifically. Perhaps DLC just might save their lives, after all.  

[schild]

Just like I don't blame EA for Bioware Austin, I won't blame EA for this brand of silliness coming out of Bioware Edmonton. I'm sorry, but they do not get a pass on this because they're owned by EA.

Also, EA pays as well as any other company for most positions - and better than many.

[Sheepherder]

From reading that article, those tutorials sound decidely unimportant.  Thanks for the three year old article though.  It's something I'll keep in the back of my mind if I ever decide to purchase Madden '07.

How about multiplayer modes on the disk needing to be unlocked through a product key? (Joystiq also, sorry Schild, I'm not schilling, I swear)

[Margalis]

There's a lot of money being made, but I'm not sure "happiness" is trickling down to these guys specifically.

Actually at EA as a whole there's a lot of money being lost. Just an aside.

[Kitsune]

DLC is subtly different for RPGs than for games like, say, racers.  RPG DLC is basically the player paying five bucks to get a certain flavor of awesome thing for his character.  Bethesda really distilled it down to the very core.  Horse armor.  You want an armored horse, you give them three bucks.  I wanted an armload of alien guns in Fallout, so I paid them for the UFO expansion.  Gameplay?  Well sure it was there, but that wasn't the point.  I just wanted pew pew so I could disintegrate people square in the face and giggle.

I'm not paying for gameplay that may or may not have been cut from the game.  I'm paying for a toy that looks swank and gives me an unfair advantage.  If I want gameplay, I'll go for an expansion pack.

[Tebonas]

Of course DLC is a money grab. If the game is perfectly playable without it, you can just ignore it. If not, don't buy the core game or wait for the GOTY edition.

Once core features are missing, they've crossed a line. Problem is developers decide what a core feature is. A different way of handling inventory smells somewhat fishy for day 1 DLC. But I didn't play the game yet. Will inventory management be perfectly fine without it or will your gaming experience hurt without it? No way to know yet.

Personally I'll be waiting for the Expansion packs. But I would anyway because of their retarded way of delivering via Games for Windows. After the Fallout language debacle I won't touch that again!

[Sheepherder]

Once core features are missing, they've crossed a line. Problem is developers decide what a core feature is. A different way of handling inventory smells somewhat fishy for day 1 DLC. But I didn't play the game yet. Will inventory management be perfectly fine without it or will your gaming experience hurt without it? No way to know yet.

Again, the storage shit appears to be bad PR.  Apparently they define "permanent storage" as an actor reference that isn't instantiated/movable, as opposed to a container for storing gear which isn't garbage collected periodically like the rest of the gaming world defines it.  One would assume their definition also includes not being garbage collected.  In gamer parlance it should read:

• We have storage crates in our DLC, FUCK YEAH!

[Tebonas]

The question that remains is if there are storage crates without the DLC, though. For me it sounds like a base of operations for convenience. Is it is the ONLY base of operations?

[Sheepherder]

That's what I'm saying, according to their PR there is no other "permanent storage", because the other player-owned storage moves with you.

Goodbye mama, now you can have ice cream in heavan! I'll see you again tonight when I go to bed in my head movies. But this head movie makes my eyes rain!

[Riggswolfe]

The question that remains is if there are storage crates without the DLC, though. For me it sounds like a base of operations for convenience. Is it is the ONLY base of operations?

A dev explicitly said on the forums that you have a "Campsite" where followers stay and one of the things at this campsite is some kind of storage.

[sam16]

There were a couple of posts on the official forums explaining why this DLC couldn't have been included in the main game:

http://www.dragonagecentral.com/single/1254519420

The process of shipping a game is a gradual series of hardening and locking down. The world needs to be solidified so that the plot structure can be formed. The plot structure needs to be solid so that the plots can be written. The plots need to be written so that they can be scripted. The plots need to be scripted so that they can be tested. The plots need to be tested so that they can be voiced. The plots need to be voiced so that they can be staged and given cinematic polish. The cinematic polish needs to be finished so that it can be tested. Everything needs to be locked down so that performance testing and optimization and eventually disc layout and certification can be done.

Now, things don’t always work perfectly, and changes often have to be made to things which were assumed to be locked, which causes a ripple effect and lots of work for everyone. You need to stop changing things at some point so everything that depends on them can be done. DLC is a separate product, so it doesn’t have to be tested and verified as part of the final build, it doesn’t have to be accounted for in the disc layout, and it doesn’t have to be in the game when it goes through official certification. It has its own schedule and its own verification process. And let’s not forget its own budget, because ultimately games are a business and manpower is limited by money.

To make the console ports possible, the content of Dragon Age was locked down in the spring. It wasn’t possible to add new content past that point, and the VO lockdown was much earlier than that. The game was still tested and improved with bug fixes, stability and performance improvements etc, but adding whole new adventure like Wardens Keep? That would have pushed the release date back. The PC version had a very long time after content lockdown for testing and final polish, which could have been cut short to ship that version earlier, but it was decided to ship it simultaneously with the console versions for a variety of reasons. But that’s a separate issue.

Could we have taken people from the DLC team and put them on the console version to speed the porting process up? Not really. Porting content requires a lot of programmers and not very many designers. We had a surplus of writers, tech designers and cinematic designers and even artists, so we put them to use. If anything, DLC is taking away from potential future projects, not from Dragon Age: Origins.

http://www.dragonagecentral.com/single/1254525660

First, it's decided that a game has to ship on a certain date. Unless you're going to delay the game, that can't change. You then start working back from there.

The manufacturer needs the final build and disc layout with enough time to print and ship the game, so you need to be completely done the game by that earlier date.

Now to ship a game, you need to go through publisher certification and if you’re on consoles you also need to go through the console manufacturer’s certification. These things take time, so that gives you an earlier deadline.

You have to prepare for that certification process, so you set a date where you can't make any changes except fixing things that would cause you to fail certification.

Before that there's a date when you can't fix any bugs except ones that have been approved by a triage group, so the game can be tested in a stable form and you don't introduce problems at the last minute.

Before that there's a date where you can't add anything new so you have enough to test and to fix bugs on what's there.

And it goes on, to earlier and earlier lockdown dates.

The process of shipping DLC is independent of all of this. DLC is much smaller than a game, and it's tested and certified independently and much more quickly, so it's not bound by the above dates. You can work on DLC right up to and past ship without effecting the release date.

If it's done, you could release the DLC for free, which would essentially make it a day 1 patch, but it absolutely could not be on the disk. That's pretty close to what we've done with Shale, as an incentive to get people to create an account and learn how to use the download service. To ship all DLC for free however ignores the fact that the DLC is made to be sold. The people working on it are paid by a budget that is only approved on the basis that there will be sales in return.

As for firing the designers and hiring more programmers, the workforce isn't that flexible. Finding good talent takes time, and firing skilled employees because they don’t have enough work in the short term is folly.

[schild]

I can come up with reasons and post them on a forum too. It's really easy. Like, REALLY easy.

As for firing the designers and hiring more programmers, the workforce isn't that flexible. Finding good talent takes time, and firing skilled employees because they don’t have enough work in the short term is folly.

It's obviously a problem for Bioware.

[Merusk]

That people will constantly take it up the ass with software where they'd throw a fit in any other consumer product pulling the same stunt always amuses me.


Using the logic of the Bioware post, my company should stop installing cabinets and dishwashers in the houses we sell.  It means we could have them done and turned over to the homeowners a full 6 weeks earlier!  If we stop drywalling all but the minimum number of rooms required by Code, earlier still!  Hell, if we don't include A/C, even in the more tropical climates, that's another two weeks!  We won't drop the prices, of course, but you can buy these upgrades any time you want to!

[Azazel]

I gotta say, the "screw the consumer" attitude of some of the games companies these days (Activision, IW, BW, EA) is really getting me to the point where I'm highly likely to go back to the methods of software aquisition I frequently used when I was much younger and less monetised, though this time on a very selective basis.

At least that's what a friend's friend's friend got me to thinking.

 

[schild]

At least that's what a friend's friend's friend got me to thinking.

Oh, shit, you know him too? Say hi for me, he hasn't been around the last few days.

[caladein]

That people will constantly take it up the ass with software where they'd throw a fit in any other consumer product pulling the same stunt always amuses me.


Using the logic of the Bioware post, my company should stop installing cabinets and dishwashers in the houses we sell.  It means we could have them done and turned over to the homeowners a full 6 weeks earlier!  If we stop drywalling all but the minimum number of rooms required by Code, earlier still!  Hell, if we don't include A/C, even in the more tropical climates, that's another two weeks!  We won't drop the prices, of course, but you can buy these upgrades any time you want to!

Except that EA's marginal cost after the first sale is essentially zero.  Software is different from everything else.

Edit: I should mention the above statement is only tangential to the pricing and release schedule for DLC.  It's really just a way to milk people who are willing to pay more to boost margins on the original product.

That's pretty fucking obvious, but it's not any different from what any other software developer does.  DLC/Expansions are just gaming's versions of Pro versions.

[KallDrexx]

The thing with Bioware's issues are that DLC is not immune from certification.  A full regression test should be done with and without the DLC to make sure the DLC does not interfere with aspects of the main game, and it has to still be approved by Microsoft's QA as well as their own QA before it can be released.  So I"m not quite sure how their response makes the slightest of sense for a day 1 purchaseable DLC.

[Jade Falcon]

Sounds more to me like Bioware is giving people with not much to do at the moment something to show the EA bean counters so they don't get fired or laid off.