Alowishus wrote:

^ It's not surprise. It is disgust. If it's available as DLC day 1 they should just pack it with the game. End of.

This comment betrays a lack of knowledge about how the game production process actually works. Here's a helpful image that should clear it up.

http://i.imgur.com/m77S3.png

If you get 403'd, either copy-paste it into the URL bar manually or go here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/comments/q3rvv/mass_effect_day_1_premium_dlc_controversy_and_how/

justdrop wrote:

Did you read point 2? Tremendous story will be missing if you don't get the character. In a series of games that are based on storyline, who wants an incomplete fucking story?

Point 2 does not say that "tremendous story will be missing". Point 2's argument is drawn directly from the Bioware Social forum, and states what has always been the case: there is extra story potential, but it is in no way integral to the game's narrative. If you've played any of Bioware's other games with DLC characters (Shale in DA: Origins, Zaeed and Kasumi in ME2, Sebastian in DA2) you know perfectly well that the DLC character(s) are self-contained pieces of content, and have basically zero impact outside of their own story missions that are included in their own DLC. This is borne out in ME3 by the leaked script, which details exactly how the DLC squadmate is involved. Guess what? It's a small raindrop in a massive bucket that does not tremendously impact the story either way. It's simply an optional mission.

Furthermore, the graph makes it clear that the majority of production work on the DLC is accomplished after the game finishes certification -- and after a game finishes certification, you can't add new content to it. Why? Ask the lawyers. This is perhaps a 2-3 month period between certification and release. It is during this window that the DLC is developed. They both release at the same time, but the stuff couldn't have been included outside of DLC even if they wanted it to be.

justdrop wrote:

Considering the race of the character that is optional has people raising eyebrows as to why that character would join, it kind of is integral to the story. Justifying their actions by saying they have a different means of development from other companies .... ...they are not the only company that pulls stunts like this...

If you don't care about spoilers, look at the character's plot involvement in the leaked storyscript. Then make a judgment.

Seems a bit contradictory there at the end...

justdrop wrote:

LordHuffnPuff wrote: justdrop wrote: Considering the race of the character that is optional has people raising eyebrows as to why that character would join, it kind of is integral to the story. Justifying their actions by saying they have a different means of development from other companies .... ...they are not the only company that pulls stunts like this... If you don't care about spoilers, look at the character's plot involvement in the leaked storyscript. Then make a judgment. Seems a bit contradictory there at the end... It's contradictory that while they're not alone, it's still bullshit practice? I say the same stuff about Activision and if any other company did it I'd say it about them too.

No, it's contradictory to say that they have a different means of development and then saying that they're not the only ones who do it. You can't have it both ways. Furthermore, they never claimed they were different.

The practice is perfectly legitimate and allows them to get the best use out of their employees. Game making is not a hobby, it is their business. I don't understand what is so objectionable about this. Due to the certification process, which every major studio goes through, they literally could not have included the content in the main game even if they had wanted to.

Furthermore, you as the consumer are not entitled to the content even if we were living in some fantasy world where this had been purposely cut out of the game in order to sell seperately. They tell you what is in the package before you buy it. If you don't want what they are selling, vote with your dollars and don't purchase it. This is how capitalism works. People may accuse EA of being greedy, but it's rather greedy on the part of the consumer to expect to get this sort of thing for free.

I edited some stuff into the above post so please read that before reading this.

Your analogy is irrelevant. Games didn't have DLC because the infrastructure for delivery was not there. Instead, at least on the PC, if a game were updated at all you would purchase a $30+ "expansion pack". As for the console? Good luck getting even a bugfix deployed. These days, you download it in smaller bites. If anything, this is an improvement, as it allows the consumer to cherry-pick the content that most suits him or her, instead of having to buy it all and perhaps only get use out of some of it. Furthermore, most games did not have these expansions at all. I certainly am much happier that now, with the advent of DLC, I can continue getting new experiences in a game I enjoy for a longer period of time as it is easier for a developer to continue supporting the product. It also allows them to iterate more quickly, as they don't need to spend time developing a new engine and/or printing physical disks for the new content that would be involved with the older model.

justdrop wrote:

Perhaps the fact that it's the purpose of every business to put out a product that people like. Otherwise what's the point of even having a QA department?

In that case I think the sales numbers speak for themselves, as Bioware's games sell very well.

justdrop wrote:

Other companies seem to not be called out on it, wonder why that is? Oh, because there's no first day DLC from them.

This is patently untrue. Bioshock 2 had DLC /on the disk/, and that was 2K Games. Fable III had Day 1 DLC, and that's from Lionhead. Soul Calibur V had Day 1 DLC as well, from Namco. It has become a common and widespread practice. The fact that somebody here decided to post about the controversy surrounding Mass Effect 3 doing it does not mean that this is a unique or even uncommon incident. It is becoming, if it is not already, the rule, not the exception.

justdrop wrote:

$60 game becomes $100+ with "additional content" that most certainly could've been included had they pushed release dates back a month or so. The only way the consumer is at fault is their demand for date of release.

This falls into the slipperly slope fallacy. As long as they continue plans to develop DLC, they can always theoretically push release back further to include it in the main game. Where do we stop? They need to decide to cut it off at some point. Furthermore, DLC is optional. Your assumption that every player needs to buy all the content ignores this -- the game is perfectly enjoyable without it.

justdrop wrote:

It's not irrelevant whatsoever; it's outdated, sure. Yes, there are benefits to online. This is not one of them.

So you'd rather buy the expansion pack, which may contain things you don't want, and will certainly be more expensive due to the physical nature of the product, than perhaps one or two DLC packs whose sum cost is perhaps only half of the expansion?

[quote="justdrop"]First point: That's fine. CoD is a good game too in some people's eyes.

justdrop wrote:

Second point: They're not the first, they're not alone. They are the first to have such an in-depth and on-going story compromised because of it, thus making it a big deal. It is unique in that aspect.

The thrust behind your response to first point is basically reusable here, despite your willful ignorance that the fellow simply does not contribute much outside of his own DLC: the value of the character is dependent upon the consumer, not some platonic ideal of "good".

justdrop wrote:

Third point: It's not a fallacy, as evidenced by your own second point. Companies have done it and gotten away with it, simply because no one said enough is enough.

I see you've been reduced to nonsensical utterances beneath the crushing grip of my logic. The point stands as this attempt to turn my argument is incomprehensible within the context of the discussion.

justdrop wrote:

Final point

You basically just repeated the slippery slope problem.

Anyway I was advised that I should stop as you're not going to actually stop despite the careful, calm laying out of logical arguments in favor of perpetuating a debate that you lost several posts ago, so I'm through here.