• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Mass Effect 3 Discussion Thread

Pre order cancelled. I was already on the fence about keeping my pre order, but between the origin only and day one dlc crap, I'm out. I love ME, but it really feels like EA is sayin "oh, you don't like it? Too bad, what are you gonna do about?" at this point. I've got plenty of other stuff to play, I'll pick this up when it's $20 or less.
 
Elios said:
yea i dont get that at all ether
just like all the mutliplayer "play with the devs stuff" thats only on 360
Click to expand...

I believe it was because they figured a PC copy would end up on torrent sites well ahead of the launch.

Not that console piracy doesn't happen mind you, but they never talk about that one, PC's get the rap for it all.

Just a guess.
 
Limahl said:
Just found this link to a good article on the whole DLC debacle and why it's our own fault.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...ploitation-of-gamers-is-our-own-damn-fault-2/

Forbes magazine of all places. :eek:

It pretty much says what I've said for years now. We have the power to cause change, but we don't use it by refusing to buy what they're selling in enough quanitity to matter.
Click to expand...
A little overdramatic to use this quote in this situation but... be the change you want to see in the world. Who cares what other folks are doing.. make the choice that you feel satisfied with and that is that.

I'm not going to buy it at launch because of these DLC shenanigans. I know it won't make a difference this time around, but I feel good about my choice.
 
Limahl said:
Just found this link to a good article on the whole DLC debacle and why it's our own fault.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...ploitation-of-gamers-is-our-own-damn-fault-2/

Forbes magazine of all places. :eek:

It pretty much says what I've said for years now. We have the power to cause change, but we don't use it by refusing to buy what they're selling in enough quanitity to matter.
Click to expand...

Yeah I've been saying the same thing. It's no different than any other business in any other industry. The business pushes to get as much money out of their products and in turn, their customers, as possible. Customers have all the power. They decide when the business has gone too far.

You can never convince a company "Hey, make less money please!" You have to make your point of view into the most profitable one. The day EA or other companies start to see that DLC lowers their income instead of increasing it, is the day DLC dies. Unfortunately, gamers are not like other customers of other businesses. Due to their reliance on the anonymity of the Internet, they are extremely good at talking the good shit and then not following through.

The situation will reach a boiling point eventually, but I think gamers aren't quite fed up with DLC enough to deprive themselves of otherwise awesome games just yet. I know I personally am not pissed off enough to miss out on ME3. I'm fiending for it like a crackhead.
 
original.png
 
That's a fair point as well. The average gamer seems to think that the two choices are as follows:

A) Game for $60, DLC for $10, $15, whatever. Total cost: $70+
B) Game for $60, all DLC free!

But really "Option B" is actually no DLC at all, any early concepts for DLC will never get the go-ahead because the company doesn't feel they can make any money off of it.

It's very easy to say "Oh, well some EA goon came in at the last second, dictated parts of the game that need to be extracted and sold at additional cost!" But that's not how it works the majority of the time. DLC, Day 1 or otherwise, is budgeted and planned for from early in the development cycle. I'm sure it's happened now and then, but it's much smarter business to get the DLC scheduled in ahead of time.

If people are really fed up with DLC, they also need to keep in mind that they aren't fighting for all DLC to be free, they are fighting for it not to exist at all. If EA and other companies decide they can't make money off of DLC, you aren't suddenly going to see them ship games with more maps, more content, etc for free. They will just take guys off that team and put them on another game. A game which you might not have any interest in at all.

That chart I really like because it emphasizes how much of this is all about perception.

The old-school way of developing additional content was to finish the game, ship it, and then get to work on an expansion. Developers realized that's actually pretty stupid. Not everyone is working full tilt throughout the entire life cycle, so now those who would normally move on were kept around to get things together.

This allowed them to ship expansions and DLC more quickly. But eventually this approach resulted in additional content that actually gets finished before the base game ships.

Here's where people get a bit silly. The view of many gamers is that any content which is finished prior to ship should be included for free with the game, even if the promise of additional income is the only reason it was created in the first place. This argument only works if you completely deny that DLC is often budgeted and developed as a distinct entity of its own.

People say they want $50 game, and $30 expansion a few months down the line. But they get mad when it's $50 game, $10 DLC at launch, and two more $10 DLCs further down the line. They spend $80 either way, but they seem to prefer the approach that makes them wait the longest to get the content, and gives them less choice about what additional content they want to pay for, and which they do not want to pay for.

The only argument I can see for the "expansion" concept is that it encourages a larger, single, coherent content additions, rather than smaller standalone content. But that isn't a guarantee, nor is it always preferable. If that larger content addition is 50% crap, you still have to pay 100% of the price to get it. If it's split in two, you can just buy the half you want. Example: Not buying the terrible Moxxi DLC for Borderlands when the rest of the DLC is great.

I'm not saying games aren't overly monetized right now. Maybe they are.

But really at the end of the day, it only comes down to one thing: What are you getting for your money? It doesn't matter how they divide the content up, or whatever bizarre perception people may have. Is the base game without the DLC worth $60? Is the additional DLC worth $10? That's a decision you can only make for yourself.

But it seems to me that if you think the DLC isn't significant enough to be worth $10, then you must also be admitting that the DLC is not significant enough that it'll make or break whether the $60 base game is worth it.
 
I really don't understand the gripes about Day 1 DLC here.

Several games have released premium content with their CEs that you don't get with the normal game. Would you prefer to just have no way of getting this DLC without buying the CE? I think it's a good thing that Bioware is making the DLC available to people who don't buy the CE.

I'll still be purchasing my CE on day 1 and enjoying all the content that comes with it.
 
Personally I think the CE should just include all DLC to ever be released. Then people could take a risk with the CE and pay more up front; funding further DLC, or pay less and perhaps pay more in the long run bit with less risk (can pick and chose DLC as it comes out). Do it that way and just let the CE and base game go without DLC for the first two weeks, and I don't think anyone would complain.

Also, one problem here is the timing of the announcement.
 
Last edited:
NKDietrich said:
If people are really fed up with DLC, they also need to keep in mind that they aren't fighting for all DLC to be free, they are fighting for it not to exist at all. If EA and other companies decide they can't make money off of DLC, you aren't suddenly going to see them ship games with more maps, more content, etc for free. They will just take guys off that team and put them on another game. A game which you might not have any interest in at all.
Click to expand...
It's not that simple. It's not simply a choice between DLC whenever and no DLC. Nor is it a choice between free and pay DLC.

I really don't have a problem with DLC in general. It has replaced the expansion pack which is a shame but I can live with that. I bought all four story based ME2 DLCs and while only two of them felt worth the cost I don't regret it. The amount of added time in the game wasn't a bad value.

What this particular debate comes down to is whether you feel content that is developed before the release of the game should cost extra. Personally, I feel that if content is ready to go at launch, it should be part of the cost of the game.

Notice also the details of what Bioware has done here. While the individual section of the game they cut out to work on later and package as this addon may not be story critical (and even that I find doubtful), think about what they chose to cut! They didn't package one of the new characters Brotastic or Tits Magee in the addon. They decided to put in something that they've been foreshadowing since the first game. Something they knew ME fans would want to see. Something that has enough importance that it should have been in the game itself. I can't argue the business sense in that. It's brilliant. It's also a shitty way to treat your fans.
 
I'm not against DLC when they aren't carving it out of the main story and when you're getting value for what you payed (i.e. non of this 1-2 hours for $10 of re-used resources garbage). Since Bethseda has repented of their horse armor ways, I think they are a pretty good model of doing DLCs right.

But yeah, I'm not going to pay over $60 to get the full gaming experience. I'm really looking forward to this game and I love the series, but if they play games on the customers I play my own games by waiting. $5 game + all the DLCs will hopefully make it under $60. I don't mind waiting.
 
drako said:
What this particular debate comes down to is whether you feel content that is developed before the release of the game should cost extra. Personally, I feel that if content is ready to go at launch, it should be part of the cost of the game.
Click to expand...

But that point of view is logically unsound.

The only reason that extra content is ready to go is because they budgeted time and manpower under the assumption that they'd be able to release it as DLC for an additional cost. If they didn't think they could sell it, they wouldn't have made it.

Your reasoning only works if we operate under the assumption that DLC is never planned for, and is always just content cut from the final game at the last second and packaged to nickle and dime the customer. I can think of a couple times that has happened, but in general...

That assumption is also unsound because it's not how these kinds of businesses are run. They don't make content and then figure out how to sell it at the end. They figure out how to sell the product very early on, budgeting extra money for any cool DLC ideas people have under the assumption that they will be able to sell it and make a profit.

I don't understand why content done 2 weeks before launch should be free, but if it takes a little longer, suddenly they get the right to charge for it? It makes no sense.
 
NKDietrich said:
The only reason that extra content is ready to go is because they budgeted time and manpower under the assumption that they'd be able to release it as DLC for an additional cost. If they didn't think they could sell it, they wouldn't have made it.

Your reasoning only works if we operate under the assumption that DLC is never planned for, and is always just content cut from the final game at the last second and packaged to nickle and dime the customer. I can think of a couple times that has happened, but in general...
Click to expand...
They made additional content for ME2 that was free at launch through their Cerberus Network system. I suppose that was a lapse in judgment?

I never said it is always cut content from the main game. In this case, evidence from the leaks over the summer/fall indicate that this piece was indeed cut content. It apparently was part of the script for the game (I wouldn't know... avoiding spoilers).

Whatever though. I'm certainly not trying to advocate anything here. I feel a certain way about the value provided, and you feel differently. You'll have the game and the day one addon purchased at launch, and I won't. In the end, that's how things should work. I don't think I'm being particularly stubborn here. I've not sworn off buying the game. I do want to play it and complete the trilogy. But I don't want to pay more for less value than the previous game (ME2). Multiplayer does nothing for me personally. So I'll wait till I can get the whole game at the price point I like... say $40-50. No problem. :)
 
DLC either need to be free, really cheap, or if they want to charge $10-$15 for it done very very well like BF3's Back to Karkand. Day 1 DLC is completely unacceptable.
 
Valshistixol said:
DLC either need to be free, really cheap, or if they want to charge $10-$15 for it done very very well like BF3's Back to Karkand. Day 1 DLC is completely unacceptable.
Click to expand...
There's definitely a question of value too. The way Bioware describes this DLC, there's no way it'll provide the same value as the equally priced Lair of the Shadow Broker did. We shall see though.
 
DLC doesn't bother me. I can understand it. What bothers me, though, is that it never goes on sale. Absurdity!
 
drako said:
Yet DLC not on Steam, like Bioware's, never goes on sale on the PC.
Click to expand...

I think EA put the points on sale once and it was a pretty good discount, but yeah. Even if they put points on sale once a year it would be better.
 
can someone tell me the definitive answer as to whether or not the Origin client will be required for this game?...I want to buy the boxed version but if it requires Origin then I might just buy it through them...some people are saying it will not require the client and only a one time Origin activation...I don't understand the difference...Steam has only 1 option-- play the game using the client so I'm confused by Origin...does it not work the same as Steam?
 
Last edited:
polonyc2 said:
can someone tell me the definitive answer as to whether or not the Origin client will be required for this game?...I want to buy the boxed version but if it requires Origin then I might just buy it through them...some people are saing it will not require the client and only a one time Origin activation...I don't understand the difference...Steam has only 1 option-- play the game using the client so I'm confused by Origin...does it not work the same as Steam?
Click to expand...

Yes Origin is required. Its the same as Steamworks titles on Steam. The client is absolutely required.
 
Derangel said:
Yes Origin is required. Its the same as Steamworks titles on Steam. The client is absolutely required.
Click to expand...

a lot of people were previously stating that the client would not be required and only a one time activation...they said BF3 was the only game which required the client to run...so it is the same as Steam where you need to have the client running at all time to play the game (except for offline mode)?...oh well guess I'm going to have to install Origin against my better judgement because of the total awesomeness of the Mass Effect series...I just hate having 2 game clients installed
 
polonyc2 said:
a lot of people were previously stating that the client would not be required and only a one time activation...they said BF3 was the only game which required the client to run...so it is the same as Steam where you need to have the client running at all time to play the game (except for offline mode)?...oh well guess I'm going to have to install Origin against my better judgement because of the total awesomeness of the Mass Effect series...I just hate having 2 game clients installed
Click to expand...

At the moment, the official line is that you have to be "connected" to their servers through Origin to activate the game. Once you do that, you can "disconnect" from their servers, but Origin will still be running whenever you launch the game, it just won't be connected to their servers.

Now, as of tonight, they pulled the modding thread we had going over there without a word. It just vanished without a trace, so I'm guessing you just might see them change it so that being connected to their servers full time is required so they can check for mods and cheats, just like D3 is doing.

Fuckjoy. :rolleyes:
 
Loved ME1, but ME2 left a bad taste in my mouth. I guess I just don't like my RPGs on rails, or having 90% of the game as "Retrieve this person. Do their quest. Repeat." I will not be playing ME3. EA seems much more interested ROI than good video games.

I'm sure my lack of buying won't hurt them in any way. People enjoy (and judging by this thread, defend) paying $150 for $50 games these days, so EA is certainly doing well for themselves.
 
Limahl said:
Now, as of tonight, they pulled the modding thread we had going over there without a word. It just vanished without a trace, so I'm guessing you just might see them change it so that being connected to their servers full time is required so they can check for mods and cheats, just like D3 is doing.

Fuckjoy. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I hope you're not surprised by that. You're buying a console game that just so happens to be running on a PC. Mods aren't allowed. Hell, we can't even change the abysmal FOV or have a run key.
 
fattypants said:
Loved ME1, but ME2 left a bad taste in my mouth. I guess I just don't like my RPGs on rails, or having 90% of the game as "Retrieve this person. Do their quest. Repeat." I will not be playing ME3. EA seems much more interested ROI than good video games.

I'm sure my lack of buying won't hurt them in any way. People enjoy (and judging by this thread, defend) paying $150 for $50 games these days, so EA is certainly doing well for themselves.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting the extra $100 from?
 
fattypants said:
I'm sure my lack of buying won't hurt them in any way. People enjoy (and judging by this thread, defend) paying $150 for $50 games these days, so EA is certainly doing well for themselves.
Click to expand...
I agree. If I'm a suit at EA and I've seen the devoted defense of these antics, I'd be salivating at the thought of how to further cut up and monetize the next Bioware release.
 
Derangel said:
Where are you getting the extra $100 from?
Click to expand...
Same place EA is getting it from: mouth-breathing consumers.

I'm going easy compared to the Destructoid article. To get every piece of DLC that will be available on the very first day of release would run $870.
 
fattypants said:
Same place EA is getting it from: mouth-breathing consumers.

I'm going easy compared to the Destructoid article. To get every piece of DLC that will be available on the very first day of release would run $870.
Click to expand...

Sigh....NO IT WOULD NOT! That article was a sensationalist piece of shit, even for DToid. The ONLY. DLC is the pre-order items and whats in the collector's edition (N7/DDE). That amounts to a total of $80. Period, end of story. If you actually READ the article and do an ounce more research than the writer did you'd see everything else was MP unlocks. Stuff you get by playing the fucking game.
 
drako said:
I hope you're not surprised by that. You're buying a console game that just so happens to be running on a PC. Mods aren't allowed. Hell, we can't even change the abysmal FOV or have a run key.
Click to expand...

I was amazed it lasted as long as it did especially thanks to one idiot who took what we figured out and went into the MP forum and put up a post of everything he was able to hack up in a MP game.

Bioware never supported modding in ME2, but they didnt lock it out either. If we can manage to mod the BIN file, you can change FOV on the fly or change the run key and tons of other control preferences people might prefer. The problem is, changes to that file mess with both SP and MP games, and thats something that they never had to worry about before.

I'm still watching that forum for the first person who comes back looking for that thread and can't find it, then makes a new thread asking where it went, and gets banned for it or something stupid.

How this all plays out by retail launch is going to be almost as interesting as the game story itself. ;)
 
fattypants said:
Loved ME1, but ME2 left a bad taste in my mouth. I guess I just don't like my RPGs on rails, or having 90% of the game as "Retrieve this person. Do their quest. Repeat." I will not be playing ME3. EA seems much more interested ROI than good video games
Click to expand...

I just finished ME2 a few days ago and although I agree that the 'retrieve this person' missions were repetitive they were still a lot of fun...this is mainly because the ME characters and universe are so expertly crafted...every race, character etc is so damn interesting with tons of backstory...each of your squadmates have such unique personalities and the voice acting made it even better

ME2 improved upon ME1 in almost every way...the interrupt system, cover system (while not ideal was still well done), planet scanning versus Mako driving etc...yes they dumbed down/streamlined a lot of the RPG elements but the quality of the overall gameworld far exceeded any negatives
 
I've pre-ordered the deluxe edition..

Well, I feel like a moron but couldn't help it. the thought of a robo-dog get the better of me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top