GameBanshee Forums

GoldDragon wrote:Me, this is how I would have had it done.

I'd have the guy in there, yes. but he'd say that you can't help him, no matter what you do.

When you close out the conversation, or have him auto-end the conversation, a pop-up would come telling you that it is DLC stuff, and that to do this quest, you need to purchase it.

It doesn't even need to be that intrusive. I like your idea of the guy just saying you can't help him no matter what, but how about during the install it cycles through different hints and one says (which would also be listed in the manual) that quests from certain characters can only be obtained through DLC. That's not even necessary though. Bethesda didn't have any problems selling their DLC without in-game ads (Oblivion DLC which was stupid little stuff like Bioware is doing... not the mini expansions of Fallout 3 which sold well most likely because they had actual content).

It is certainly a dick move though, of the highest order, to have day one DLC. No doubt about that. You make it available to everyone or you put it in the collector's edition which is already full of overpriced junk.

I could really care less about the right or wrong of advertising in this way in a game. From that standpoint it doesn't bother me at all. Business is business and the bottom line is all that's gonna count in the end to the companies anyway.

What annoys the living daylights out of me is that I was trucking along, enjoying a good RPG after several recent dissappointments, and all of a sudden, out of the blue, I was reminded that I'm playing a game. It killed the immersion factor completely for me. It's nothing permenant, and after a little while I basically forgot all about it and went on with the game as usual, but for a few minutes it just killed my mood. It's like those damned new computer rendered scenes they put in the Star Wars movies. Let me enjoy my geekdom people.

fable wrote:Ethics are a curious thing. When we tend to find something unethical, we comment about it among our peer groups. And if it is unethical behavior in an area that was previously considered sacrosanct, those comments are magnified.

My way of saying that people may or may not play it, but the comments will keep coming, along with observations about the direction game design has taken since it was overtaken many years ago by the Game Industry. And that's only reasonable, since the status quo has really changed, here.

Well comments, sure - but if both buying and also complaining about how "unethical" it is, then those comments loose most of their actual value.

Bloodstalker wrote:I could really care less about the right or wrong of advertising in this way in a game. From that standpoint it doesn't bother me at all. Business is business and the bottom line is all that's gonna count in the end to the companies anyway.

What annoys the living daylights out of me is that I was trucking along, enjoying a good RPG after several recent dissappointments, and all of a sudden, out of the blue, I was reminded that I'm playing a game. It killed the immersion factor completely for me. It's nothing permenant, and after a little while I basically forgot all about it and went on with the game as usual, but for a few minutes it just killed my mood. It's like those damned new computer rendered scenes they put in the Star Wars movies. Let me enjoy my geekdom people.

I agree that the way they've put it into the game like that seems .... unusual to say it mildly and while I do not experience it myself (as my edition has the content), I do think it would have been best if they didn't put in a NPC like that.

Outside this - I have no problem with them charging for DLC at all, because if I do not want to support it, I'll simply opt not to. I pass over many games because I either don't want to support the company, or judge the game isn't something for me.

Xandax wrote:Well comments, sure - but if both buying and also complaining about how "unethical" it is, then those comments loose most of their actual value.

To those who view Bioware-EA's actions as a worrying trend, the emphasis is on the manner in which Bioware-EA has advertised their product, and forking over cash for the product doesn't make the company's advertising methods one whit less unethical, or less worthy of comment.

Xandax wrote:I agree that the way they've put it into the game like that seems .... unusual to say it mildly and while I do not experience it myself (as my edition has the content), I do think it would have been best if they didn't put in a NPC like that.

Outside this - I have no problem with them charging for DLC at all, because if I do not want to support it, I'll simply opt not to. I pass over many games because I either don't want to support the company, or judge the game isn't something for me.

The question really is not about the offering of DLC. Please note that I am glad the DLC is being offered. Too many devs have left PC out of that equation and I was too upset about that to think otherwise.

The question is in the method. Now there are plenty of free to play browser games on the web. Advertising is fine there and I will click one every now and again to support the site.

What I am questioning is the need to put an advert right in the middle of the sodding game I have already paid for. To me it is kind of like Viggo Mortinson turning to the camera and exhorting me to buy a bowflex just before the climactic battle in Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Bit of a buzzkill really. I am a lot calmer now than I was last week, but I still don't appreciate being made to feel the price I paid for the game was not enough to get the whole complete game. It seems like Wardens keep was intended to be part of the game, but they just split it off to demonstrate how convenient their DLC system is.

As a final point before I shut up; just what precisely is wrong with using money instead of "Bioware Points" to buy DLC. The increments available do not match up with any of the available DLC purchases. So you get too many or too few. Thar be some scurvy deals doing here me hearties.

i have thought about this some more. I knew that the warden's keep was not being included in my game, but was available for purchase. the warden's keep is pretty essential as DLC goes for the 'party chest'. thus, must be available on day one, so everyone will buy it before this game get shelved. remember, i am on the 360 and do not have the ability to make one for myself. however, shale's DLC is just another character and could have been pushed back later. if she was not included on the disk, then i may not have purchased it. why would i need another tank anyway?

I hardly think that the 'buy screen' manuever completely ruined your game or made you forget that it wasn't real. If so, how are you handling the auto saves, re-loading do to failed dialogue, and taking breaks to eat/sleep/work? are all of those things dream sequences from Dragon age's reality? (that reads alot harsher than intended)

The goal of a company is to make money. there's no ifs, ands, or buts. it is their only goal! postponing any game to polish it or to port it to the console for a massive release costs money. re-routing your employees to work on the dropped functionality or additional content which may make up for some of those losses is smart. IF those employees manage to fix/create something that they can sell us, then they are obligated to sell it to us. it is not un-ethical for a company to sell it's wares. The speed of the DLC releases just shows you how money-hungry they are. Even if you are offended by the DLC, they do not care. You have already purchased the game before realizing that your DLC soul is going to be devoured, so uninstalling the game seems like a pointless gesture.

You feel that you bought a new appliance and it didn't come with everything to work. unfortunately, it does work and the DLC is merely the extension cord or a colored face panel to complement the appliance. Cars are a very good example of multiple options for first day releases and after purchase modifications.

stanolis wrote:The goal of a company is to make money. there's no ifs, ands, or buts. it is their only goal!

There isn't a services or product provider who would agree with this. The primary goal of a company is certainly to make money, but there are plenty of other goals that usually accompany it. If you think about it for a bit, I'm sure you'll agree. Whether it's emphasizing quality in production as a goal, or environmental cleanup, or excellent problem solving for users, or providing a neighborhood resource, or having a monopoly, or developing a reputation for cutting edge technology, or creating a niche for a new item, or tutorial classes to make the learning curve as gradual as possible, any or all of these and other, similar goals distinguish the owners and management of various companies.

it is not un-ethical for a company to sell it's wares.

Where in this thread has anybody suggested it is? Nobody has, or will: everybody here agrees there's no problem with selling a product. We're discussing whether the in-game mechanism used to sell is unethical, or even, for that matter, just a self-defeating moodbreaker. If you buy into either case, it does itself no favors. Let's be constructive about this, instead of arguing interminably to no effect: if you have no difficulty with what Bioware-EA has done, then I would ask you and anybody else who feels the same way: is there a line you personally would draw? If having a person showing up every time you camp who offers a new quest advertising additional pay-for-play DLC doesn't bother you, what about a character in the middle of a road telling you there's a city up ahead with plenty of quests and wondrous items, but it only appears if you buy DLC? How about a big boss at the end of a huge battle who won't yield up his legendary items, until, you discover, you pay for DLC? And if that doesn't bother you, can you envision a situation where pay-for-play DLC would?

I am telling you that their only goal is to make money. all other goals are merely a means to an end for that goal. it sounds harsh, but this is true. superior quality of product will help bring you a solid customer base who gives repeat business. you are not trying to make the best product just because. if you could sell the rattiest little piece of crap for 1,000 dollars, you would. ::
you find out that you love to make arrows and then try to build up a business around that. you must figure out something (superior product, cheaper product, different coloring, etc) to steal customers from the other established arrow makers.

i have no idea when i would reach a breaking point and get upset over this DLC thing. i cannot honestly speculate on it even though the thread says 'future of DLC'. there's just too many what-ifs. When it happens, it happens. Then, you and I can scream at the developers all day. So far, what they have done (putting a man in camp, on the road, or in town to advertise) has not.

I read that aqua-chan got banned from the official servers. it's sad to hear how they refuse to hear any real grievances over there.

off topic: my biggest problem with this game has to be the tactic system. bioware had a perfect system for mass effect imo, and then they give me this.

fable wrote:Let's be constructive about this, instead of arguing interminably to no effect: if you have no difficulty with what Bioware-EA has done, then I would ask you and anybody else who feels the same way: is there a line you personally would draw? If having a person showing up every time you camp who offers a new quest advertising additional pay-for-play DLC doesn't bother you, what about a character in the middle of a road telling you there's a city up ahead with plenty of quests and wondrous items, but it only appears if you buy DLC? How about a big boss at the end of a huge battle who won't yield up his legendary items, until, you discover, you pay for DLC? And if that doesn't bother you, can you envision a situation where pay-for-play DLC would?

I suppose I would draw the line if a cut scene interrupted my game play to inform me of new content. That might be a killer. It's one thing to have some rube in the camp with a yellow exclamation point over his head. I chose to talk to him and the conversation ensued. Breaking my flow in the middle of a major plot quest adventure to inform me to spend some cash would really irk me. Even if I was really upset about it though, I already paid for the game so I might as well finish it.

All this said, if this game or more bioware games are going to employ this tactic, the exclamation point over their head should be of a different color. That way, I know what I'm getting into before speaking to them.

Bloodstalker wrote:I could really care less about the right or wrong of advertising in this way in a game. From that standpoint it doesn't bother me at all. Business is business and the bottom line is all that's gonna count in the end to the companies anyway.

What annoys the living daylights out of me is that I was trucking along, enjoying a good RPG after several recent dissappointments, and all of a sudden, out of the blue, I was reminded that I'm playing a game. It killed the immersion factor completely for me. It's nothing permenant, and after a little while I basically forgot all about it and went on with the game as usual, but for a few minutes it just killed my mood. It's like those damned new computer rendered scenes they put in the Star Wars movies. Let me enjoy my geekdom people.

I think your annoyance is the root of everyone's annoying, and leads to arguments like in your first paragraph as people try to justify the fact that their immersion was destroyed. I know it's that way for me. I don't care about how ethical in-game advertisements are. I care about how they break immersion. Of course, this all depends. In San Andreas I loved the joke advertisements and thought they really added flavor to the game, but I wouldn't have ceased to enjoy the game if they were replaced by real ads. I can enjoy a Coke if it advertises Disney World on the can even though I paid for a Coke and not a Disney ad. But San Andreas is modeled on the real world, and Coke has no immersion factor.

However, it is also important to remember that neither San Andreas nor Coke throw the ads in your face. If Doritos was advertised in the loading screens or featured prominently in cutscenes or health packs, or if the Coke can played the Magic Kingdom theme every time you took a sip, then hell yes that would completely shatter my enjoyment because instead of being a game or a drink it becomes a commercial.

Now, I of course cannot speak for anyone else, but I do seriously think that the ethical et al arguments against in-game advertisements stem from the fact that they're annoying and destroy immersion. You pay a lot for these games and don't want to spend your time being bombarded by ads that actually serve to lessen your enjoyment.

I bought the DLC and the 7$ is a high price for the 1 hr playing time associated with the quest. My annoyance with the in game add along with the fact that the quest line is very short makes me not really wnat to play this game any more. DLC completed at the time of game release should have been added to the game I purchased. I already ponied up the extra 15 for the collectors edition and found that the blood dragon armor is no where near worth paying for although I admit I do like shale and her storyline. I'm constantly annoyed by money grabs from game companies!!!

Warden's Keep comes with a Sword thru a Random encounter. A La Superman.

Wardens' Keep DLC on X360 doesn't work.

I agree! I'm getting tired of paying full price for 3/4 of a game. To add salt to the wound, Wardens' Keep on the X360 doesn't work. Do I still buy the DLCs? Yes, but only if I truly enjoy the game, and then not all avail. for a particular game. At least all the other DLCs worked perfectly. Shame on Bioware for putting out something so buggy.