Hipocrisy - thy name is DLC

[deano2099]

You're hardly comparing like-with-like there though. I'd look again.

Magicka has extra levels available as DLC which do add to the core of the game. No, it doesn't add to the story or narrative, but that's because Magicka barely has one. Magicka is about running around maps and killing stuff. It's like complaining that the DLC for a driving game only adds new cars and tracks, and not cutscenes in between races.

Magicka does have some shiny equipment you can buy too, which are just pointless little trinkets... and so does Dragon Age. Both of them. The item packs for DA2 came out about a month ago and are significantly more expensive than the Magicka ones too I think.

And to address the crux of your argument, outwith of the games themselves, people get annoyed at the DLC that adds actual content as they feel like they have to buy it, whereas cash cow stuff can just be ignored (and I've said it before and will say it again: if the cost of my games can be subsidised by rich people that buy hats, then that's just fine with me).

[winterwolves]

I think the difference is that DA is a "big" title so people expected something on par with Mass Effect 2 (awesome game). Magicka was more forgiven probably also because there was less expectation/hype about it?

[TheLastBaron]

One thing also to keep in mind with Magicka and other indie games is that DLC is also a way of donating to the devs after playing and enjoying their game. I bought the $0.99 wizards robes because I wanted to support them, not because I cared about the items, and I think that was the idea.

[squirrelfanatic]

One thing also to keep in mind with Magicka and other indie games is that DLC is also a way of donating to the devs after playing and enjoying their game. I bought the $0.99 wizards robes because I wanted to support them, not because I cared about the items, and I think that was the idea.

Nitpicking coming in! Isn't Magicka published by Paradox and therefore not an indy title?

[Axyl]

During the Steam sales, I picked up all the remaining Magicka DLCs i was missing (4 i believe)...

one of them cost me 20p, none of them cost me more than £1 during the sales, or £1.50 before the sales.

Kinda speaks for itself. :)

[Wooly Wugga Wugga]

I think that larger studios are held to a higher standard than smaller studios. Everyone loves the plucky underfunded underdog. The looming behemoth has to work a little harder.

Also I think your example is possibly not a good one because there are a lot of people dissapointed by DA2. Bioware released a game that was a bit crap really and then asked gamers to shell out extra cash to improve the experience. That is a recipe for bitterness if you ask me.

[Basilicus]

Also I think your example is possibly not a good one because there are a lot of people dissapointed by DA2. Bioware released a game that was a bit crap really and then asked gamers to shell out extra cash to improve the experience.

Well, I'm trying to pose the question free of the quality of the initial game: why is one DLC approach more accepted than another? To me, the acceptance of ultimately meaningless DLC is counterintuitive.

As for releasing DLC that changes the core game, I've played the last few Bioware games on release and never felt like I missed out on a full, detailed experience. I never felt like a piece of the game had been torn out and, indeed, DLCs that plugged into the core game always felt additional rather than required.

Now, if DA2 had DLC released that fixed the levels by adding more designs, and this was charged for, it would be a huge issue, because it would address an incompletion in the game. Adding a character isn't a completion of an incomplete game - it's an addition, and a meaty one at that.

[deano2099]

As for releasing DLC that changes the core game, I've played the last few Bioware games on release and never felt like I missed out on a full, detailed experience. I never felt like a piece of the game had been torn out and, indeed, DLCs that plugged into the core game always felt additional rather than required.

Depends if you count Shale or not as she was DLC but bundled with all new copies of the game. The official line is that she was meant to be part of the main game but was taken out as there were problems with her fitting through doorways. When launch was delayed, they had time to fix that. It seems fairly clear given how well she ties in to the main Deep Roads quest that she was in the original design.

Contrast that with the extra characters in ME 2 who were clearly just shoe-horned in. On the other hand, the Shadowbroker DLC for ME2 seemed like it should have been in the main game, given how Liara hints at it even if you don't have it installed. It was obvious that plot was meant to go somewhere, but it was just left hanging unless you bought the add-on.

The thing is, compared to the main game, DLC on a size/money basis is nearly always a rip-off. For cosmetic stuff or extra weapons it doesn't really matter if you skip it. You don't have to be ripped off. For large narrative-driven games, missing out on part of the story matters a lot more. Sure, you can still not buy it, but then you won't get to experience what happens to Liara or whatever. If you do, you have to pay 25% of the cost of the game for 5% of the content.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Adding a character isn't a completion of an incomplete game - it's an addition, and a meaty one at that.

If these come out at the time of release, or very very quickly after, I disagree. This is content being withheld in order to boost sales or get more money. Traditional DLC avoided this problem by adding content after the main game was finished, or in such substantial amounts that it was worth visiting the new are for the large amount of hours you would spend (often you could use your existing character or party).

[TillEulenspiegel]

DLCs that plugged into the core game always felt additional rather than required.

I very much doubt you're the norm. Creating the feeling that you're missing out by not buying a product is an old-as-dirt marketing trick. It's pretty clearly the intention of this type of DLC, even if you personally are immune or indifferent.

DA:O has some fairly egregious examples, from the in-game advertisements to the Shale/Orzammar content. If you do one of the game's major quests without a DLC character, you're missing out on some fairly important stuff. And if you miss it, you're going to have to start a whole new game, so you'd better buy it first.

[archonsod]

If these come out at the time of release, or very very quickly after, I disagree. This is content being withheld in order to boost sales or get more money.

Yep, because the game gets released the day after you go gold, and you don't have for example six months of thumb twiddling while Microsoft decide if they'll let you launch on their Xbox ...

[GraveyardJimmy]

Yep, because the game gets released the day after you go gold, and you don't have for example six months of thumb twiddling while Microsoft decide if they'll let you launch on their Xbox ...

You really think that when a game goes gold people suddenly have no work to do other than make DLC? DLC is part of a already planned marketing strategy, not something made up after they wait a length of time until ship date, especially if this is day one stuff (like characters such as shale).

[deano2099]

Yep, because the game gets released the day after you go gold, and you don't have for example six months of thumb twiddling while Microsoft decide if they'll let you launch on their Xbox ...

'Gold' means nothing now when day 1 patches are the norm even on consoles. You go 'gold' two months early before low priority bugs are even fixed.

[archonsod]

You really think that when a game goes gold people suddenly have no work to do other than make DLC?

Prior to DLC they got made redundant. You work it out.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Prior to DLC they got made redundant. You work it out.

So basically, every game that was released before DLC meant that every developer was made redundant as soon as the game was finished? That's just a lie.

[Basilicus]

Slight tangent, but how was Shale tied into the main Deep Roads quest? I know she was originally to be included but for the doors issue, but my second playthrough I took Shale into the Deep Roads with me and noticed very little difference. I was actually a bit disappointed that the dwarves seemed not to be particularly impressed that I had a golem with me.

There is the Shale loyalty quest in the Deep Roads if you get her friendly to you, but this isn't tied into the main quest at all. It takes place in an area additional to the main quest. Perhaps I just missed some references....

[Jockie]

Slight tangent, but how was Shale tied into the main Deep Roads quest? I know she was originally to be included but for the doors issue, but my second playthrough I took Shale into the Deep Roads with me and noticed very little difference. I was actually a bit disappointed that the dwarves seemed not to be particularly impressed that I had a golem with me.

There is the Shale loyalty quest in the Deep Roads if you get her friendly to you, but this isn't tied into the main quest at all. It takes place in an area additional to the main quest. Perhaps I just missed some references....

Slight SPOILERS..


Most likely Till is referring to the conversation stuff that happened at the very end of Orzammar where Shale has fairly strong feelings about your decisions, certain decisions will make Shale attack you outright if not handled well.

[deano2099]

I think the fact that she was taken out means she's not as well integrated as she would have been. But outside of mechanics, in terms of the story it's huge. You go in to the Deep Roads and discover how Golems are created and make a choice on how to resolve that. Meanwhile you have a Golem with you who is questioning her identity and where she comes from.

[Cooper]

I ask myself the same basic question (with regards to DLC and core-game prices)

Will I get as much out of this as I would the amount of beer I can get at the same price?

The beer comparison has kept me in good stead.

Take Magic 2012: The whole game is setup around DLC, the buy-in price is low, but you either have to grind, or pay, for the full decks. Thing is, all the decks in full cost the same as a short afternoon of drinking. I would rather a short afternoon of drinking than a few digital cards...

Whereas a hat on sale in Mann Co. store for the price of half a pint is worth it. Hats are great, and set me out as a distinguished gentlefolk...

DLC does become problematic when it's available on release day. The Stone Prisoner was just a way of getting cash from second hand sales. The DA2 pre-order DLC is a tad problematic.

But then -all- pre-order bonuses are intrinsically problematic. Disinsentivising consumers to wait for reviews, friends opinions, or reductions in price over time are all really cynical business practices. I refuse any pre-order nonsense on prinicpal.