Day-One DLC Files Appear on Mass Effect 3 Discs

[Shalafi]

Limbo sold over $10 million in sales on a shoestring budget. So don't give me that crap about low development costs = shitty game.

Minecraft was made very inexpensively and has made Notch millions of dollars.

Orcs Must Die is a great indie game that has sold millions, same with Dungeon Defenders, and Magicka, and the list goes on and on.

You don't need to spend $250 million to make a good game and achieve financial success.

 

[Dan_D]

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1673333&page=22

The comments on that page alone tell you that ME3 is not worth the money.

It's a great game until you get to the end. I'd argue that the last couple of hours is pretty lame compared to earlier games, but still the overall game experience is great until the last 15 minutes or so. Then it turns into a huge pile of shit. At least one of the endings has a clear indication than the whole ending sequence is pretty much a dream and that we haven't seen the real end of the game.

Lots of theories going around about this, but nothing concrete. Could be that BioWare wasn't sure how to end it and bought time with this crap. Could be that EA forced them to release the game before they wanted to, and they did this crap to buy time. Could be a simple money grab. The ending is so shitty that many fans of the series would pay $10 at the very least to end the story right. Could be a combination of factors. I will say that the game is excellent up to a point, and while some aspects of the game are dumbed down, (some of the faster mini-side quests are for the most part stupid) others like the weapon modification system are certainly not. They are much more customizable and complex than they were in ME2. It's like ME1 but without the shitty interface and having to either sell or convert excess crap to Omni-Gel. Many of the game mechanics are a hybrid of ME1 and ME2. The combat is closer to 2's combat but streamlined and evolved a bit.

Believe it or not the multiplayer is actually a lot of fun as well. I got over 40 hours of enjoyment out of the game and despite hating the ending, the game was still a better buy at $60 than most games are.

 

[mas]

DLC is fully contained in the core game, changing one line of code unlocks it even if you do not have From Ashes installed.

Already been posted, and incorrect. The character can be unlocked, his mission is a 600MB download.

nope you're both correct, depending on what you choose to believe. quoting back to this now after comparing with "other versions" that prove without a doubt, the entire "from ashes" content including character data and eden prime mission was available on the standard retail version, unlockable with a single change in the main executable that could have been accomplished with a less than 40mb patch. which means one or both of the following -

a. bioware fabricated a fake 600mb download
- hard to believe they would go this far, but there's really no other way to explain it, besides some incompetent roundabout method to get around their own drm
b. bioware wanted to discreetly patch other exploits unlocking ce content
- all of this is on there as well - items, weapons, armor, everything can be unlocked by decompiling coalesced.bin

either way they're lying, and that youtube interview going around is 100% correct. what you choose to believe is up to you, and however they want to spin it, this could always be easily confirmed by the community outside of bioware forums. the truth is they did it the lazy way and shipped all the same assets with different launchers for each version. whether or not you're entitled to play with content already in your disc/download is still up for debate I guess, but that's the way it happened.

 

[Dan_D]

People still can't seem to grasp the fact that software works on a license based system. You the consumer, do not own jack shit. It doesn't matter if the game has all the N7 weapons and DLC armors, etc. and the From Ashes DLC on the disc. If you didn't buy the license to use this stuff, you don't get it. You aren't entitled to it simply because the code resides on the disc.

 

[Shalafi]

People still can't seem to grasp the fact that software works on a license based system. You the consumer, do not own jack shit. It doesn't matter if the game has all the N7 weapons and DLC armors, etc. and the From Ashes DLC on the disc. If you didn't buy the license to use this stuff, you don't get it. You aren't entitled to it simply because the code resides on the disc.

That's why Mass Effect 3, Day 1 is the Incomplete Edition. This applies to most games released these days, what with the 17 different DLC's they want to peddle on you.

I prefer to purchase Complete Editions, which are usually the Game of the Year editions that bundle all the DLC.

Sweet, I invented a new gaming term, "Complete Editions".

 

[mas]

People still can't seem to grasp the fact that software works on a license based system. You the consumer, do not own jack shit. It doesn't matter if the game has all the N7 weapons and DLC armors, etc. and the From Ashes DLC on the disc. If you didn't buy the license to use this stuff, you don't get it. You aren't entitled to it simply because the code resides on the disc.

got to agree, people say you should be able to do whatever you want with any data that comes in the package, while this may also be true you're of course not entitled for them to enable it. focus on discussion should be whether or not they should have included it for everyone in the first place, not the fact that it was on disc, this is irrelevant.

the reason I wanted to clarify this is just because they tried to cover it up. what they should have done was stick to their guns, and admit that the purpose was to ship seperate versions with the same assets. not play off the issue and put up some hoops to jump through, this bullshit 600mb download to pacify some misplaced rage.

the real problem I have with the way they do things is, ea/bioware pr has no qualms about being dishonest or manipulative with the community, we could cite many examples of them saying one thing and then doing the exact opposite. such as what they told us about the single player story being seperate from mp, another issue they finagled 5 months before launch, and are now still trying to play off weeks after the game has been released. a simple increase of the war assets modifier would have remedied this easily, but they purposely balanced it to directly contradict with officially posted information they released about the game themselves. it's bad business imo.

 

[Tudz]

No shit, that was my point.

That was your point yet at no time did you say it Maybe I wouldn't be captain obvious if there wasn't captain ambiguous and irrational over here

Limbo sold over $10 million in sales on a shoestring budget. So don't give me that crap about low development costs = shitty game.

Minecraft was made very inexpensively and has made Notch millions of dollars.

Orcs Must Die is a great indie game that has sold millions, same with Dungeon Defenders, and Magicka, and the list goes on and on.

Where the fuck did I ever said low development costs = shitty game? You need some reading comprehension glasses (and just comprehension in general would go a long way). There are shitty games at all price points, indie doesn't automatically = gold, there's plenty of shit games there too.

But yes, there are cheaply made games that make lots of money. But even that "lots of money" from a game like Limbo would barely cover the costs of a game like The Witcher 2, which was a reasonably cheap mainstream game by modern standards (probably because of the low wages in Poland).

Indie games are great and all... but I also want to play games like Skyrim, The Witcher, Gran Turismo, Battlefield 3.

Big worlds, sexy graphics, attention to detail. People complain about consoles stagnating PC graphics, but if development money wasn't there from people buying the game at high prices, there'd be no money to make the sexy graphics in the first place.

You don't need to spend $250 million to make a good game and achieve financial success.

Nope, but there's a market for them. If you don't like it, stop fucking whinging and insulting other people because you're too ignorant to see past your own reflection and stick to your $10 indie titles.

 

[Plague_Injected]

If publishers want to peddle this poxy licence model, they shouldn't charge full-price for a game that isn't complete. I'd be happy with Day-One DLC if it meant the base game was $40-$50 at launch.

 

[XvMMvX]

Was MW2 a good game? Fuck no, it was garbage bin material.

Actually MW2 was a great game...I played the shit out it and got more than my $75 worth. Don't mind me though I am busy actually playing the games and not on a forum bitching about how I have been wronged by the gaming industry.

If these companies ran the way you think they should there wouldn't be a gaming indsutry or it would still be stuck in the days of people probably like you living in their moms basement. This industry has exploded and its not the same....well it is if you actually PLAY the games and not just bitch at how a company decides to deliver their product.

If you don't like it, don't buy it...I am tired of single player mindless interactive movies...so I don't buy them, but obviously some people like that. However if your not going to buy maybe you should find another hobby.

Now I need to get back to buying cheap ass entertainment at $60 and ruining your gaming experience.

 

[Solitude]

Actually MW2 was a great game...I played the shit out it and got more than my $75 worth. Don't mind me though I am busy actually playing the games and not on a forum bitching about how I have been wronged by the gaming industry.

If these companies ran the way you think they should there wouldn't be a gaming indsutry or it would still be stuck in the days of people probably like you living in their moms basement. This industry has exploded and its not the same....well it is if you actually PLAY the games and not just bitch at how a company decides to deliver their product.

If you don't like it, don't buy it...I am tired of single player mindless interactive movies...so I don't buy them, but obviously some people like that. However if your not going to buy maybe you should find another hobby.

Now I need to get back to buying cheap ass entertainment at $60 and ruining your gaming experience.

thank you. I don't understand why some people have trouble understanding this.

 

[Dan_D]

I'm more pissed about exclusive preorder content at some retailers than I am about day 1 DLC content being on the disc. I never had an opportunity to get the black hole gun or the Terminus Armor in ME2 and I wanted that stuff. But because I didn't preorder through Gamestop, I couldn't have it.

The fact of the matter is, all business want add on sales to their products. I don't know why people demonize the gaming industry for it and not necessarily do so with other industries. If you buy a house, they want to sell you a warranty, if you buy a car, same thing. Car dealers will try and sell you various accessories too. You are in no way obligated to buy them and if you do like what they are selling, or think you will like it you are left with a choice. Purchase it, or don't. Obviously if you don't purchase it, then you won't have it, but that's just too bad.

I think this is more of that entitlement bullshit. Somehow people think that their $49.99 or $59.99 entitles them to something extra than the game itself. Well I'm sorry but you aren't entitled to squat. Companies wouldn't develop extra armor, weapons, missions, characters, etc. without some incentive to do so. Sorry but it's a business and businesses want to make more and more money. That's largely why they exist. I hate to agree with Cliffy B, but game developers should make games because they love them, but they also need to make sure they get paid for their work. Game companies aren't charities.

In the old days after a game was made, you were lucky to get regular patches for it. New content often came upwards of a year later as an expansion pack that was a third to half the length of the original game with new items in it as well. Some were worth it, and some weren't. Now I'd like to see the DLC model pricing structure change. I think much of it is too expensive. Lair of the Shadow Broker in ME2 was worth every penny of $10 to me. The Arrival and the other DLC's were worth only about $5 in my mind. The add-on armors and what not were not worth the $5 for just one ugly armor and 2 guns or whatever. Now the Dr. Pepper promotions had the right idea. For the cost of a soda, which you were still able to drink, you could go onto the Dr. Pepper website and redeem your code and pick a single in-game item to add to your collection. That I thought was nice. It was only one item but it was cheap as hell.

 

[Shalafi]

This is where me and you are gonna differ Dan_D. I don't consider Day 1 to be a games release day. I consider it to be the beginning of a public beta period. All the Day 1 adopters go out there, pay their $60, inevitably end up here on the forum complaining about this or that problem that needs to be patched, or glitches, and whatnot.

Inevitably, patches, and DLC comes out, and a few months down the line, we end up with a patched game with all the DLC bundled at a cheaper price.

It isn't about being entitled, it's about getting your money's worth. Damn straight I get my money's worth when I buy the Complete Edition of a game as opposed to overpaying Day 1 for an Incomplete Edition for the sake of joining a public beta.

With the rampant mentality of publishers who want the devs to finish up a game by a deadline and get the game out the door, regardless of quality checks, we end up more often than not with games that need patches after launch, and they chop off some of the game to sell as DLC Day 1.

We need to update that Mona Lisa .jpg to appropriately reflect this new trend of Day 1 DLC, which is undoubtedly chopped off of the original game to make extra money.

I view it as a tax on stupid people.

 

[drako]

In the old days after a game was made, you were lucky to get regular patches for it.

Say what? The old games I remember were very well supported. Here are just a couple examples:

UT and UT2kx both got many free bonus packs with maps and character models.
Total Annihilation had many free units and maps plus a map editor.
Half-Life had TFC, Deathmatch Classic, and Ricochet for free.
The Jedi Knight and Soldier of Fortune games had free MP maps after launch.

Patches for all of those came more often than patches do now. I don't feel like arguing whether or not that should be the norm, but let's not misconstrue the history of the industry.

 

[Dan_D]

Say what? The old games I remember were very well supported. Here are just a couple examples:

UT and UT2kx both got many free bonus packs with maps and character models.
Total Annihilation had many free units and maps plus a map editor.
Half-Life had TFC, Deathmatch Classic, and Ricochet for free.
The Jedi Knight and Soldier of Fortune games had free MP maps after launch.

Patches for all of those came more often than patches do now. I don't feel like arguing whether or not that should be the norm, but let's not misconstrue the history of the industry.

You haven't been gaming as long as I have then. Going back to the DOS days we rarely saw patches. One could argue that the games didn't need as many back then as they weren't nearly as complex. When we did see patches they were usually minor. Even then patches were all you got unless they decided to release an expansion pack which was typically either $19.99 or $29.99. And yes, the industry at times has had free maps and what not after release, but that was during the early days of multiplayer oriented gaming. And really it's mostly UT and Quake that had that. Some other games did it too as you pointed out, and those were AAA titles but they are just a few examples.

 

[MavericK]

Yes, they charge $60 because they CAN, because people are willing to pay $60.

They are not charging $60 because they have to.

If they had to, then their games wouldn't go on sale so quickly after launch. If they had to make every bit of that $60, then they wouldn't be discounting so steeply during the winter sales or mid-summer sales.

Bioware points are a huge scam and I see no reason why someone would buy Bioware points when they can't use up every single point to buy DLC . . .

Yeah, and even further proving your point is that a lot of games can be found below retail at release, even pre-order. I got BF3 for like $42 before it ever came out.

 

[MavericK]

You haven't been gaming as long as I have then. Going back to the DOS days we rarely saw patches. One could argue that the games didn't need as many back then as they weren't nearly as complex. When we did see patches they were usually minor. Even then patches were all you got unless they decided to release an expansion pack which was typically either $19.99 or $29.99. And yes, the industry at times has had free maps and what not after release, but that was during the early days of multiplayer oriented gaming. And really it's mostly UT and Quake that had that. Some other games did it too as you pointed out, and those were AAA titles but they are just a few examples.

Well back in the DOS days the Internet wasn't exactly as widely utilized, and it was slow as hell.

Games were also much less complex, less hardware complexity, etc. etc. I rarely remember needing patches for DOS games.

 

[Shalafi]

Well back in the DOS days the Internet wasn't exactly as widely utilized, and it was slow as hell.

Games were also much less complex, less hardware complexity, etc. etc. I rarely remember needing patches for DOS games.

Not only that, game developers actually gave a shit about quality control back then and had extensive beta testing in house and on a limited public basis back then.

FYI, I'm 30 years old, I played Battle Chess when I was 5 off a DOS prompt. Hell, I played the original Test Drive. I'm a real O.G.

 

[Shalafi]

Say what? The old games I remember were very well supported. Here are just a couple examples:

UT and UT2kx both got many free bonus packs with maps and character models.
Total Annihilation had many free units and maps plus a map editor.
Half-Life had TFC, Deathmatch Classic, and Ricochet for free.
The Jedi Knight and Soldier of Fortune games had free MP maps after launch.

Patches for all of those came more often than patches do now. I don't feel like arguing whether or not that should be the norm, but let's not misconstrue the history of the industry.

This should be the norm, it's the Koticks and EAs of the gaming world that want to shake down customers in pursuit of the almighty dolla instead of doing what developers and publishers did for most of PC gaming's history, which is offer excellent post-release support and content.

I choose to ignore or not support them, and if I DO support them, I make sure I buy a Complete Edition well below retail value.

 

[Dan_D]

Well back in the DOS days the Internet wasn't exactly as widely utilized, and it was slow as hell.

Games were also much less complex, less hardware complexity, etc. etc. I rarely remember needing patches for DOS games.

What I'm really saying is that patches were all we really got if that. We didn't get free add ons either. We had to buy expansion packs assuming the game ever got one. Now I'll argue that those were generally a better value than the DLC we have now. And again that's what I'm saying, the DLC model is fine with regard to everything but price. But when statistically 40% of all people who purchased Mass Effect 3 on day 1 also bought From Ashes, that tells you that the model they have works because people allow it to work.

I'm not going to lie either. I've bought a lot of DLC, but I've also refused to buy DLC I didn't think was worth the cost of admission. Part of it has to do with not just the value of the DLC content itself, but supporting the games and developers I like.

 

[Troub]

Think about it the fiscal year ends this month and what month was the game released again? Yeah this month so I would bet that EA forced them to rush it so that EA can look good with their financial amounts and in return we get a rushed/poor ending that are making a lot of us angry, I would blame EA for this one.

 

[Shalafi]

Here's the new Mona Lisa to reflect these new times in gaming.

 

[Dan_D]

Think about it the fiscal year ends this month and what month was the game released again? Yeah this month so I would bet that EA forced them to rush it so that EA can look good with their financial amounts and in return we get a rushed/poor ending that are making a lot of us angry, I would blame EA for this one.

I would too. This is a ploy to ensure we buy the DLC's they'll release which probably should have been included in the game in the first place.

 

[Dan_D]

Here's the new Mona Lisa to reflect these new times in gaming.
Image snip...................

Sometimes this isn't true. Some DLC clearly seems like it was an add on and not meant to be part of the original story. Mass Effect 2 is a fine example of this. Project overlord and The Arrival DLC's work in such a way as to clearly stand alone. The dialog isn't nearly as rich nor are the character interactions. They clearly seem tacked on. They lack the integration I've seen in other DLC's like From Ashes. The Shadow Broker DLC was pretty well integrated in a manner of speaking. It blended into the existing game well, but really only Shepard and Liara, and the bad guys actually speak in the DLC. And once you start it you are pretty much on for the whole 2 hours it takes to finish it. So while it may have been part of the original story, it was clearly not done at launch time. It too was tacked on to a degree. As was Project Firewalker. The Arrival was just made to bridge the gaps between Mass Effect 2 and 3. I believe they weren't 100% sure how they wanted to go into ME3, and then found a way to bridge that gap.

Now, From Ashes definitely has a high level of integration with the game. Clearly this seems like a piece of the game that was removed and then added in to get more money. EA wanted $70 for the basic game, but instead charged $60 and $10 for the DLC. This makes it seem like you have a choice. I guess you do, but it's only really a softer way of saying we want to jack the price $10 without the backlash of doing so. DLC gets it's own backlash for sure, but it won't alienate everyone.

Frankly most developers are going to business models like this. Why? Because it WORKS. As long as people keep paying for it they'll keep doing it. If you don't like or want a particular DLC or you stand on some kind of principal against it, then don't buy it. But the bitching is getting old. This model works because we the consumer allow it to. Personally I'm not opposed to the model. But I won't buy a DLC unless I feel it adds value to the game and more importantly, I think the enjoyment I'll get out of it is worth the cash. The problem is that it's subjective. I think Lair of the Shadow Broker, Project Overlord and the Arrival were worth the cost and these missions added probably a combined 6 hours or whatever to the original game. Cost analysis be damned, I thought they were a lot of fun, continued a story I enjoyed and were worth it to me. From Ashes was included in the Collector's Edition of ME3 and while it's value is more debatable in my mind, I'm glad I played it. I think it should have been in the actual game myself, as the Javik adds a LOT to the story. But only in a historical context. He also adds an alternative to Liara as she is your only Biotic in this game unless your Shepard is. Mine isn't, so Javik comes in handy.

 

[drako]

You haven't been gaming as long as I have then. Going back to the DOS days we rarely saw patches. One could argue that the games didn't need as many back then as they weren't nearly as complex. When we did see patches they were usually minor. Even then patches were all you got unless they decided to release an expansion pack which was typically either $19.99 or $29.99. And yes, the industry at times has had free maps and what not after release, but that was during the early days of multiplayer oriented gaming. And really it's mostly UT and Quake that had that. Some other games did it too as you pointed out, and those were AAA titles but they are just a few examples.

I got into PC gaming around 1995-96, so probably not. Still, it seems strange to skip over an entire time period in history. I hope that was an oversight and not intentional because it ran counter to your argument.

For the record, I don't see that type of support ever coming back. Gaming companies were still trying to get a handle on how to best use the internet. Back then, it was seen as an incentive to get people to buy the box copy. But now it's just another layer of monetization on top of the box.

 

[Dan_D]

I got into PC gaming around 1995-96, so probably not. Still, it seems strange to skip over an entire time period in history. I hope that was an oversight and not intentional because it ran counter to your argument.

For the record, I don't see that type of support ever coming back. Gaming companies were still trying to get a handle on how to best use the internet. Back then, it was seen as an incentive to get people to buy the box copy. But now it's just another layer of monetization on top of the box.

I started around 1994 or so. But yeah, I remember UT and those games, but that was more or less one genre of games that got that treatment. FPS games with a strong multiplayer component were treated that way. But prior to that, and during that period most games didn't get that treatment. I didn't forget that, but most of the time I've spent playing PC games we never have gotten a whole lot for free.

 

[MavericK]

Clearly this seems like a piece of the game that was removed and then added in to get more money.

I think this is the core of the argument, here, at least from my perspective. Pulling out pieces of what would or should have been included in the full game is not okay, IMO. Then again, we do not know for sure that this is the case but as you say, a lot of evidence points toward this.

I have no problem with DLC that actually adds new content in addition to the full game, but when something like this comes out it just seems like a money grab, pure and simple.

And I agree with your post when you quoted mine about DLC being fine except for the price. And, as stated before, pulling out content from the original game in order to charge for it as "day 1 DLC" is not okay in my book, as well.

 

[Dan_D]

I think this is the core of the argument, here, at least from my perspective. Pulling out pieces of what would or should have been included in the full game is not okay, IMO. Then again, we do not know for sure that this is the case but as you say, a lot of evidence points toward this.

I have no problem with DLC that actually adds new content in addition to the full game, but when something like this comes out it just seems like a money grab, pure and simple.

I don't like it either. Clearly most of ME2's DLC content was added on after the fact. ME3's first DLC seems far too integrated for that to be the case. But regardless, it's their product. They can do whatever they want with it. Either pay for it, or don't. It's really that simple.

I'm not happy about it either, but it's their choice. Just like the shitty ending was their choice. Not ours. Though had many of us known the ending was that bad, we wouldn't have purchased the game. That too I think is a grab for more money. I think BioWare made a shitty ending that would piss us off so bad that we'll pay for DLC to resolve the problem.

 

[MavericK]

I don't like it either. Clearly most of ME2's DLC content was added on after the fact. ME3's first DLC seems far too integrated for that to be the case. But regardless, it's their product. They can do whatever they want with it. Either pay for it, or don't. It's really that simple.

I'm not happy about it either, but it's their choice. Just like the shitty ending was their choice. Not ours. Though had many of us known the ending was that bad, we wouldn't have purchased the game. That too I think is a grab for more money. I think BioWare made a shitty ending that would piss us off so bad that we'll pay for DLC to resolve the problem.

Agreed. I just think overall that complaining about people complaining turns into a Moebius strip of complaints. There's always going to be people complaining about something or other, but I guess the only way to spread awareness about the issues is to complain.

Ultimately, though, the only real pull you have is voting with your wallet. Sadly a lot of people who buy release titles either don't see it as a problem or are ignorant to it. Value is different to everyone, but my question is, at what point does it become unacceptable to people? $80? $100? By buying games at $50, then $60, now (very quickly) $70, you are telling companies that they can keep raising prices.

 

[Shalafi]

Agreed. I just think overall that complaining about people complaining turns into a Moebius strip of complaints. There's always going to be people complaining about something or other, but I guess the only way to spread awareness about the issues is to complain.

Ultimately, though, the only real pull you have is voting with your wallet. Sadly a lot of people who buy release titles either don't see it as a problem or are ignorant to it. Value is different to everyone, but my question is, at what point does it become unacceptable to people? $80? $100? By buying games at $50, then $60, now (very quickly) $70, you are telling companies that they can keep raising prices.

Ding ding, we have a winner.

Problem is consumers are stupid. The vast majority of people who accepted this $60 Day 1 price scheme and Day 1 DLC shit are stupid.

They will buy anything, you could take a dump in a box, label it Mass Effect or Call of Duty and it would sell millions, that's basically what Kotick has done with the Call of Duty series.

With this pricing and bad ending, which was either rushed, or EA's way of angling at getting you to pay for DIFFERENT ENDINGS . . .

Remember when this DLC business was brought up when it first began? We said that eventually, you would pay retail for the base game, then buy DLC which gives you the endings.

This may be the start of that.

If so. We told you so.

 

[Godmachine]

It's a great game until you get to the end. I'd argue that the last couple of hours is pretty lame compared to earlier games, but still the overall game experience is great until the last 15 minutes or so. Then it turns into a huge pile of shit. At least one of the endings has a clear indication than the whole ending sequence is pretty much a dream and that we haven't seen the real end of the game.

Lots of theories going around about this, but nothing concrete. Could be that BioWare wasn't sure how to end it and bought time with this crap. Could be that EA forced them to release the game before they wanted to, and they did this crap to buy time. Could be a simple money grab. The ending is so shitty that many fans of the series would pay $10 at the very least to end the story right. Could be a combination of factors. I will say that the game is excellent up to a point, and while some aspects of the game are dumbed down, (some of the faster mini-side quests are for the most part stupid) others like the weapon modification system are certainly not. They are much more customizable and complex than they were in ME2. It's like ME1 but without the shitty interface and having to either sell or convert excess crap to Omni-Gel. Many of the game mechanics are a hybrid of ME1 and ME2. The combat is closer to 2's combat but streamlined and evolved a bit.

Believe it or not the multiplayer is actually a lot of fun as well. I got over 40 hours of enjoyment out of the game and despite hating the ending, the game was still a better buy at $60 than most games are.

I think you've summed up my exact feelings about ME3 in general. While I'm not fully satisfied I'm still happy with having bought it. The MP has been shockingly addictive.

 

[Spewn]

I don't like it either. Clearly most of ME2's DLC content was added on after the fact. ME3's first DLC seems far too integrated for that to be the case. But regardless, it's their product. They can do whatever they want with it. Either pay for it, or don't. It's really that simple.

I have to imagine that most of the people who don't like this have "simply" not paid for it. Why that, or anything else, should prevent them from saying "I didn't buy ME3 because: my reasons" is beyond me. These forums would be a pretty empty place if people just bought games they liked, didn't buy games they didn't like, any never talked about them or the reasons behind their decisions.

 

[Dan_D]

I think the price for From Ashes is too steep for the most part. I got it with the Collector's Edition which from a cost break down perspective isn't the same deal. So I don't feel like I paid as much for it. I actually wanted the extras that came with the CE version. Still after having played through the DLC I have to say that I enjoyed it and I can't imagine the game without it. And again, for a soldier class, Javik is almost a must. That is unless you want to bring Liara everywhere with you. I usually do, but sometimes I like to change things up.

And from the perspective of on mission dialog, Liara + Garrus, Garrus + Vega, or Garrus + Javik and even Javik + Vega are all really entertaining. Liara and Garrus mainly because they have a little extra dialog in some places because the history they have with Shepard and some of the people you run into in the game which they also have history with. Javik + Vega or Garrus is funny because of how competitive they get with each other. Liara + Javik is pretty entertaining as well because he challenges everything she new about Protheans and she is often morally horrified by the things he says. But the bulk of that comes from simply having Javik on the ship as periodically you have to mediate between the two. And Javik has at least one additional conversation with Shepard concerning your relationship if you romanced Liara. He's actually nicer to Liara because of your relationship at one point.

 

[Plague_Injected]

Frankly most developers are going to business models like this. Why? Because it WORKS. As long as people keep paying for it they'll keep doing it. If you don't like or want a particular DLC or you stand on some kind of principal against it, then don't buy it. But the bitching is getting old. This model works because we the consumer allow it to. Personally I'm not opposed to the model. But I won't buy a DLC unless I feel it adds value to the game and more importantly, I think the enjoyment I'll get out of it is worth the cash. The problem is that it's subjective. I think Lair of the Shadow Broker, Project Overlord and the Arrival were worth the cost and these missions added probably a combined 6 hours or whatever to the original game. Cost analysis be damned, I thought they were a lot of fun, continued a story I enjoyed and were worth it to me. From Ashes was included in the Collector's Edition of ME3 and while it's value is more debatable in my mind, I'm glad I played it. I think it should have been in the actual game myself, as the Javik adds a LOT to the story. But only in a historical context. He also adds an alternative to Liara as she is your only Biotic in this game unless your Shepard is. Mine isn't, so Javik comes in handy.

The problem with the "don't like it, don't buy it" argument is that as this practice continues to infect more and more releases, people who are against this are going to be buying so few games that they might as well leave the hobby altogether.

I acknowledge the needs for the customer to adapt to new business models so the industry can grow - nobody can really argue against that - but when both the blatant exploitation of DLC's abilities and the subsequent contempt for the end consumer are accepted en masse, it is a bridge too far.

 

[Komskies]

Ding ding, we have a winner.

Problem is consumers are stupid. The vast majority of people who accepted this $60 Day 1 price scheme and Day 1 DLC shit are stupid.

They will buy anything, you could take a dump in a box, label it Mass Effect or Call of Duty and it would sell millions, that's basically what Kotick has done with the Call of Duty series.

With this pricing and bad ending, which was either rushed, or EA's way of angling at getting you to pay for DIFFERENT ENDINGS . . .

Remember when this DLC business was brought up when it first began? We said that eventually, you would pay retail for the base game, then buy DLC which gives you the endings.

This may be the start of that.

If so. We told you so.

The late, great George Carlin summed up your thoughts perfectly:

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

 

[MavericK]

The problem with the "don't like it, don't buy it" argument is that as this practice continues to infect more and more releases, people who are against this are going to be buying so few games that they might as well leave the hobby altogether.

I acknowledge the needs for the customer to adapt to new business models so the industry can grow - nobody can really argue against that - but when both the blatant exploitation of DLC's abilities and the subsequent contempt for the end consumer are accepted en masse, it is a bridge too far.

Agreed. The only real "solution" is to wait and buy at a heavily discounted price later on. However, a lot of people are too impatient for that and thus we perpetuate the price gouging.

 

[TwistedAegis]

The late, great George Carlin summed up your thoughts perfectly:

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

The real problem is that people think they're a lot smarter than they are. I won't name any names.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2187-incompetent-people-ignorant.html

It's not merely optimism, but rather that their total lack of expertise renders them unable to recognize their deficiency. Even when Dunning and his colleagues offer study participants a $100 reward if they can rate themselves accurately, they cannot. "They're really trying to be honest and impartial," he said.

Check the chart on the story - it shows that those who do worst (in the bottom quintile) rate themselves only slightly less competent as those in the top quintile.

 

[piscian18]

The real problem is that people think they're a lot smarter than they are. I won't name any names.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2187-incompetent-people-ignorant.html



Check the chart on the story - it shows that those who do worst (in the bottom quintile) rate themselves only slightly less competent as those in the top quintile.

TI;DR

 

[Dan_D]

The problem with the "don't like it, don't buy it" argument is that as this practice continues to infect more and more releases, people who are against this are going to be buying so few games that they might as well leave the hobby altogether.

I acknowledge the needs for the customer to adapt to new business models so the industry can grow - nobody can really argue against that - but when both the blatant exploitation of DLC's abilities and the subsequent contempt for the end consumer are accepted en masse, it is a bridge too far.

Frankly the masses have no choice. Only an individual consumer does. By that I mean if the masses accept this practice, then it becomes a valid business model and therefore accepted practice. If an individual wants to stand on principal, they will stand alone. I'm not saying its right or that I like it, but that is the way it is.

 

[Komskies]

TI;DR

Hehe, you are the bottom quintile.

 

[Komskies]

The real problem is that people think they're a lot smarter than they are. I won't name any names.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2187-incompetent-people-ignorant.html



Check the chart on the story - it shows that those who do worst (in the bottom quintile) rate themselves only slightly less competent as those in the top quintile.

Since I'm on a quote streak today, here is another relevant quote from British philosopher Bertrand Russell:

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."