A Dirge for the Sinking Ship

Ask certain people in the know, and they will tell you that the current gaming market is unsustainable. It’s pretty rare that I turn my Sauron eye to the forums for support, but this particular comment about Electronic Arts’ recent layoffs is the kind of science I like to see laid on people. It ties together with troubling research I’ve done on my own end, and while I’m not on board with the full conclusion, there does seem to be some strong evidence that the gaming industry is stuck in the Death Star trash compactor and can’t seem to get 3PO on the communicator.

I honestly have a genuine fear about what the next 3 or 4 years might bring in the gaming marketplace. Even if there is not dire writing on the wall some troubling graffiti has turned up portending dark days ahead. The industry has been in a struggle for nearly a decade to monetize their transactions outside of the initial purchase, and instead of making progress the rise of the used market, an unreliable consumer base and the omni-present piracy revenue suck have just made things worse.

So, when Bioware and EA put so many resources into developing a hardcore gamers-game like Dragon Age, and people light pitchforks on fire because of optional DLC, I can’t help but feel intensely frustrated at what I see as thin-skinned entitlement and monumental naivete.

I consider many in the angry mob to be friends, and it does not give me pleasure to stand against them. But, I firmly believe that if you want to keep getting games like Dragon Age, like Fallout 3, like Uncharted 2, like The Beatles: Rock Band then gamers are going to need to get on board with or at least stop openly revolting against things like Day-1 DLC.

I have been watching with trepidation and concern the past 2 years as a conflict of game publishing ideology has erupted between the once mighty Electronic Arts and the laser-focused, unrepentant capitalism of Activision. And, as EA sheds hundreds of jobs, and more importantly dozens of projects, my worst fears are come true. The focus on scatter-shot approaches to new IPs and emphasis on driving quality over quantity is great for warming cockles in hearts, but ejaculating dozens of crappy iterations of go-to franchises has tragically triumphed as the profitable way to go.

The only way to sustain that emphasis on gamer-friendly qualities is by making a profit on the releases that do well to off-set the costs of doing business. Warden’s Keep isn’t about greedily slurping up the ignorance of gamers. It’s about funding the next Mirror’s Edge. It’s about having the resources to take chances on games that gamers love.

Have cake or eat cake. Sorry, kids, you only get to choose one, and I fear now even that choice may have been taken from our hands.

While we were all squabbling in the corner over meaningless skirmishes about DLC and dedicated servers, the war was waged on another front and it’s starting to look like we lost.

I hate to be dire, but I’ve seen 3 years of the Bobby Kotick doctrine, and if that’s what the future for companies like EA and TakeTwo and THQ is going to be then we’re going to sit back in a few years and long for the day when we got to whine about Day-1 DLC in a game like Dragon Age. Let me describe the future I see. Subscription based services married with microtransactions. Hobbled initial releases where the DLC is not just an optional quest, but key game mechanics. One-time required online authentication that prevents multi-player for used games. A virtual death of games like Mirror’s Edge, Dead Space, Ghostbusters, Brutal Legend, Borderlands or Dragon Age.

You're standing on the Titanic, and you're complaining about the color of the deck chairs.

If I sound mad, it’s because I am. It is an unfocussed rage that simmers and burns, because many of the kinds of games I adore are destined for the dust bin. And, the reality is that no one is clean in this fight. Publishers have adopted a model that is proving unsustainable to match the rising cost of development. Retailers who struggle against thin new-release profit margins have compromised the industry as a whole for their own profit. Gamers have waged their own zealot war against a changing marketplace, irresponsibly made unreasonable decisions about their entitlements and bent the rules as they see fit to get what they think they’ve got coming. Nobody comes out of this smelling like a rose.

As our well-informed forum commenter mentions in his post, the acquisition of Playfish along with the cancellation of mid-range games might as well be EA’s white flag waved in the breeze. You recall when Activision let go of Ghostbusters, Brutal Legend and the Chronicles of Riddick remake. These are exactly the kind of games that major publishers can’t afford to make any more if they can’t find a meaningful way to continue profiting beyond initial sales. These are exactly the kind of games that EA just ejected.

Let me put it this way, if having Day-one DLC in a game like Dragon Age means that Bioware gets to make the sequel, and not having it means they don’t, I will happily take the opportunity to make my informed purchasing choice and I will fold my arms and look sternly at those who gripe and complain. Drawing the line in the sand has consequences, and I’m not nearly invested enough in the ideology of consumer activism in the gaming marketplace to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If you want an industry that can take chances. If you want an industry that can be agile and adaptable to niche demands. If you want publishers that are willing to explore new IPs and put resources behind projects like Dragon Age, then you, my stubborn and well-intentioned comrades, need to turn down the righteous fury.

Comments

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I'm sure saying this won't make me popular, but graphics whores are the actual people ruining the industry.

Yes...

Nightmare wrote:

One of the reasons I'm primarily a PC gamer is that when the Dragon Age's of the world have moved on, there will still be people who make stuff I want to play, like Torchlight.

...and Yes.

Infinity wrote:

Remember the lessons of the PS2's long lifespan. At the end of its life we saw niche titles appear that were considered successful critically and even financially, probably because of how cheap it had become to develop for the system at that point and how such a broad audience of gamers it had reached. Everybody wins then, don't you think?

Tip of the Hat to your sir!

Don't go here.. lol

http://eliminate.ngmoco.com/

Wonderful article. An article worthy of a monthly donation not unlike what I provide to MPR!!!

There have been plenty of statements about using your wallet to voice your opinion so I thought I would embarrass myself with an admission:

I would actually pay more than $60 dollars for some of the titles in my library. I play primarily play JRPGs and routinely put in over 200 hours for most of them. I thoroughly enjoy exploration. Finding every little nook and cranny that the designers might have placed a treasure chest. If the designers have done there job, I will be entertained for a long time.

If you are interested in voting with your wallet a system should be setup to do so.

I sent Radiohead 5 pounds for "In Rainbows" after downloading it for free. They make music that is interesting to me and the more I listen, the more I find. (I assume the 5 pounds I sent them is vastly more than they would receive if I had bought the CD.)

I would have gladly sent an additional monetary donation to the developers at CAPCOM after playing Dragon Quarter: Breath of Fire but didn't know how to or if it would actual go to the design group responsible.

I know times are tough. I am still looking for work myself. But this fact has made me want to support the things I love and stop supporting the things that appear to be parasites on my wallet. (Killing QWEST? Wallet +45... dollars a month.)

If it brings you joy, support it.

Ice cream for my wife and I? $11. Staring at each other knowing that we want to explore relationships with other non-player characters in Dragon Age until midnight? Priceless (well actually $7).

Great article and I totally agree. I bought the Day One DLC for Dragon Age on Day One. It was totally worth it. I plan on getting the Borderlands DLC when it comes out also. The promise of it has kept me from trading the game in to the point that I probably won't now.

CptGlanton wrote:

I'm not sure that I understand the logic of the article, but it seems to be this: If I want Mirror's Edge (a game that I did not play, but that we are taking as a symbol of 'quality-over-quantity' here, which is fine), then I need to buy the DLC in Dragon Age purely for the sake of increasing my purchase price for Dragon's Age. Similarly, if I want more Brutal Legend (another symbol for quantity-over-quality), then I need to purchase whatever DLC they might develop for that title or for other EA titles, on the assumption it's all going into the same pot. If I'm misreading, someone please correct me,

You're misreading it. The claim is that DLC helps fund new IPs. The extra revenue that a publisher can generate wil be pushed into riskier projects. If less revenue is generated, publishers invest those dollars into less risky investments.

This post has me so conflicted. Yes i understand game companies need to bring home cash to make new games and new IPs. I get that, i really do. But the way they are going to go about it is such a slippery and dangerous slope. We are at 10% unemployment here in the states now and everyone seems to have less money. To suddenly change the marketplace for a non essential good, i doubt that would help.

We all see where this is going to eventually end up: pay 20$ more to finish the last half of this 6 hour game that you just paid 60$ for. Its gonna happen, someones gonna try it.

Most of my friends would love to be current gamers in this day and age, but are stuck with a n64 and goldeneye still because to them the whole market is unaffordable. These are people with good jobs, good hearts, and good sense of how to live well without breaking the bank. Yet they only get a game or two a year, why, because they have student loans... they have kids... they have a car payment. All of which are infinitely more important than a games dlc or pay plan. Yet because of pricing, i know at least two people that right now are playing Torchlight who probably have not bought a game in a year. That sort of model makes sense to them.

What really depresses it even more is when games journalism (who are conspicuously absent from blame in the main post) goes off on banking statement tangents, guilting us into buying games and dlc, or telling us that the company needs the cash or that "if you don't like it don't buy it." Well i know people that "don't buy it," and they are never coming back to gaming. With all the other life factors out there they cannot afford to, and having the very spokesmen for the games telling them to f*ck off they have no incentive to do so.

I know im a horrible person for having a different opinion, not being able to type, oh well... Parallax Abstraction said it better... end rant

To suddenly change the marketplace for a non essential good, i doubt that would help.

You act like they are changing the marketplace on a whim.. the reality is more that the market is now changing and these guys are being forced to change or die.

The market very well end up being completely dominated by Social Gaming that is freemium based.. and smaller "indie" studios that rely 100% on digital distribution and are composed of a handful of employees making $20 titles once or twice a year.

The EA's, ActiBlizzars, and Gamestops of the world simply go bye-bye.

Jayhawker wrote:
CptGlanton wrote:

I'm not sure that I understand the logic of the article, but it seems to be this: If I want Mirror's Edge (a game that I did not play, but that we are taking as a symbol of 'quality-over-quantity' here, which is fine), then I need to buy the DLC in Dragon Age purely for the sake of increasing my purchase price for Dragon's Age. Similarly, if I want more Brutal Legend (another symbol for quantity-over-quality), then I need to purchase whatever DLC they might develop for that title or for other EA titles, on the assumption it's all going into the same pot. If I'm misreading, someone please correct me,

You're misreading it. The claim is that DLC helps fund new IPs. The extra revenue that a publisher can generate wil be pushed into riskier projects. If less revenue is generated, publishers invest those dollars into less risky investments.

I would disagree. If a published cannot risk the lose on a project, they will stick to safe projects. If however, the company has enough money to risk, they will be more likely to try riskier projects. Every big hit has started as a risky project. That doesn't mean these new project won't have DLC as well, but the publisher will be more confident in trying to either hit a niche market or a market that as of yet they feel haven't been fully tapped.

They all know that sticking to safe projects eventually leads to ruin. It might give them a boost in the short term, but in the long run the companies that are willing to try to find the next big thing are the ones who stay in the lead.

I like DLC.
I like micropayments.

But for some reason I do not like the two things together. And especially if the DLC is available right after game launch. That just telegraphs, "MoneyGrab" to me. Don't hold some content back, just so you can charge for it upon or near release date of the game. Me: 'Thanks, I just paid $50.00; and you want... wha??'

C'mon, please, I need to be bled dry some more. So, now it's all our faults if we don't pay up and get a sub-optimal gaming experience?

I could rant more, but the voices in my head are getting very loud and angry... Id dropping client-server does not help my gaming moods any.

TheGameguru wrote:
To suddenly change the marketplace for a non essential good, i doubt that would help.

You act like they are changing the marketplace on a whim.. the reality is more that the market is now changing and these guys are being forced to change or die.

The market very well end up being completely dominated by Social Gaming that is freemium based.. and smaller "indie" studios that rely 100% on digital distribution and are composed of a handful of employees making $20 titles once or twice a year.

The EA's, ActiBlizzars, and Gamestops of the world simply go bye-bye.

No, you are right, i just worded that part incorrectly. I shouldn't say that suddenly EA / whoever is going to suddenly charge that way, but rather they are just going to end up that way. In a way though it is their fault... it being their market anyway. But in the end even talking abut the "market" as a whole, while necessary, is really really depressing on a gaming scale. I dont want to buy a games dlc to make sure there is a sequel, i wanna get dlc because it adds a significant play value to the game that wasn't thought of at launch.

i just really dislike the attitude that sprouts the "dont like it dont buy it." As i see it as counterproductive to everybody.

edit: how did that quote text not work... oh well. anyhow, agree, just depressed by it.

Elysium wrote:
Now if and when it becomes mandatory, where publishers release skeleton-games that can only be fleshed out with additional purchases ... Well then I will have to take a good long look at which entities I will be supporting with my consumer dollars.

Couldn't agree more. You think today's fight is bad, wait until this happens. And, I have to admit that I'll be thinking the whole time, "boy, if people had just gotten over themselves 4 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess." Those who will rail and complain the loudest may end up having no one but themselves to blame.

Perhaps I'm just cynical by nature, but I don't think buying DLC or whatever right now is going to matter one bit in this case. Game publishing is like any other business. If a publisher thinks they can get away with that kind of business model, they'll adopt it. If it's successful, ALL publishers will adopt it so long as it's cost effective.

So when the day comes that some brave publisher decides to test the market for a skeleton game, I hope that the majority of the public refuses to bite.

We all see where this is going to eventually end up: pay 20$ more to finish the last half of this 6 hour game that you just paid 60$ for. Its gonna happen, someones gonna try it.

And they'll probably fail, have you ever read the studies on how many people actually finish games? Most people would go "Eh, I'm done anyway" and go watch TV. I don't think it's as slam-dunk as most of the hardcore assume. Most people outside the enthusiast community aren't completionists.

I'd argue the gaming industry has been making the most of it's money off of enthusiasts specifically because they're completionists and the whole "casual" and "indie" phenomenon are basically games that don't assume you're borderline OCD

Dysplastic wrote:

And if consumers vote with their wallet and make their opinions known that they don't support DLC, and this somehow leads to the implosion of the industry as we know it - then screw it. Let it implode. I don't want an industry that relies on people tolerating content they don't want in order to get content they do want. I think that there is a way to have your cake and eat it to - even if it has to come from people like Runic instead of people like EA or Activision.

Exactly. If the business case for a product relies on selling uninteresting and unnecessary DLC (think horse armor or something, not add-on quests which actually add gameplay and value), the project shouldn't go forward anyways, and I can't imagine many studios would choose to go forward with such a product.

So if we're looking at a situation where games aren't making money because customers aren't buying as much DLC as they thought they'd sell, things need to (and will) change on the developer/publisher side. Someone will have to take a long, hard look at their income expectations, development budgets, and exactly what kinds of DLC are making money.

True enough to give me some hope, but who knows. It would suck if MW3 did this, or even did this for multiplayer. I know im reaching now but you never know.

ow if you excuse my ocd im going to go play some peggle.

TheGameguru wrote:

You act like they are changing the marketplace on a whim.. the reality is more that the market is now changing and these guys are being forced to change or die.

They are trying to change it on a whim. Because their previous attempt didn't give them the riches they deluded themselves into expecting. The market is not forcing them to make their decisions the way they are. The market is only not willing to dance to their current tune. There is nothing in the market that is forcing EA to put NPCs into the game to advertise DLC or that IW has to cut multiplayer from their hit game. They could easily make their decisions differently.

TheGameguru wrote:

The market very well end up being completely dominated by Social Gaming that is freemium based.. and smaller "indie" studios that rely 100% on digital distribution and are composed of a handful of employees making $20 titles once or twice a year.

The EA's, ActiBlizzars, and Gamestops of the world simply go bye-bye.

That's a bit of a doom and gloom hyperbole. So if I just pay money every time EA puts an NPC add into my game, I will forestall all of gaming being converted into freemium (whatever that means) or micro-indy development? Pardon my saying so, but that's poppycock.

Blizzard was doing just fine on its own for almost 20 years, while still respecting their customers. They did not need EA and Activision to tell them how to run their business successfully.

I don't know if this angle has been looked at yet (I'm probably a filthy skimmer but there's only so much text on the screen I'm going to read) but did it ever occur that Day One DLC might just exist because it was created or at least finished while the discs were being pressed (gone gold). Maybe it is a sinister money grab but who knows.

Besides the time frame aspect haven't we been buying DLC on the PC for ages now (expansion packs). I just can't get worked up over something that gives the consumer the choice. Don't get me wrong, I would be outraged if some major game functionality would be added through Day One DLC but I doubt that will ever happen. It would be interesting to see what kind of firestorm would be created if you were charged to add a jumping mechanic or some equally mundane but game changing content.

Jayhawker wrote:
CptGlanton wrote:

I'm not sure that I understand the logic of the article, but it seems to be this: If I want Mirror's Edge (a game that I did not play, but that we are taking as a symbol of 'quality-over-quantity' here, which is fine), then I need to buy the DLC in Dragon Age purely for the sake of increasing my purchase price for Dragon's Age. Similarly, if I want more Brutal Legend (another symbol for quantity-over-quality), then I need to purchase whatever DLC they might develop for that title or for other EA titles, on the assumption it's all going into the same pot. If I'm misreading, someone please correct me,

You're misreading it. The claim is that DLC helps fund new IPs. The extra revenue that a publisher can generate wil be pushed into riskier projects. If less revenue is generated, publishers invest those dollars into less risky investments.

Even after re-reading this (and the original article), it still doesn't make any sense to me.

If anything, I would actually say that support of DLC actually fuels the descent into the future of micro-transactions. What exactly is the direct correlation between DLC revenue and new IP development? If the publishers are in that deep of a hole, why wouldn't the success of DLC beget more DLC? Why would a publisher decide to take a risk on a large project, solely because of the increased funds, when they can bring in more direct revenue through DLC on their existing properties.

I don't have any rage one way or the other over the Warden's Keep DLC - though, if anything, I think the advertisement of the DLC in the game is tactless - but this article seems like an absurd overreaction in the other direction. When I read things like...

the original article wrote:

Have cake or eat cake. Sorry, kids, you only get to choose one, and I fear now even that choice may have been taken from our hands.

...or...

the original article wrote:

If you want an industry that can take chances. If you want an industry that can be agile and adaptable to niche demands. If you want publishers that are willing to explore new IPs and put resources behind projects like Dragon Age, then you, my stubborn and well-intentioned comrades, need to turn down the righteous fury.

...along with some of the comments on the most recent Conference Call, it almost seems like a desperate panic and, ironically, a sense of entitlement: a sense that BioWare is entitled to my money through the Warden's Keep DLC because they made an original game, regardless of the value of that DLC or how it relates to the core in-game content.

If I play through Dragon Age and enjoy it enough to feel like I want additional content, then I'll consider the value proposition of Warden's Keep and potentially spend my hard-earned Microsoft spacebucks or whatever. But, if/when I push the button to confirm that purchase, I'm not going to do it out of some greater obligation towards BioWare, EA, or the future livelihood of creativity in gaming; I'll do it because the game is actually good enough to bring me back for more.

Chief Wiggum wrote:

I like DLC.
I like micropayments.

But for some reason I do not like the two things together. And especially if the DLC is available right after game launch. That just telegraphs, "MoneyGrab" to me. Don't hold some content back, just so you can charge for it upon or near release date of the game. Me: 'Thanks, I just paid $50.00; and you want... wha??'

Here's the problem with this assumption: if a game comes out today, then all development on that game stopped months ago.

First the game needs to go through all the necessary testing procedures, then it needs to be printed and distributed to retailers. During this time most of the developers, writers, artists, designers, etc. will no longer be contributing to the game: most likely the only people working on it will be QA and a handful of the original development team doing bug fixes. Heck, certain people will probably finish their work on the game long before it enters the QA process.

The company isn't going to pay all these developers and content creators to sit around doing nothing, so they'll start working on something else: maybe a new game, maybe more content for an existing game. If it's a small enough project, it's entirely possible that it can be finished and tested by the time that the original game ships. This isn't content that was "held back", it's content that was created after the original game was finished. When you pay your $50, you're paying for the game that went gold months, maybe even a year ago. There's no reason to feel entitled to any DLC they create between then and now, any more than you would be entitled to a portion of their next game.

Edit: V-O beat me to it!

They are trying to change it on a whim. Because their previous attempt didn't give them the riches they deluded themselves into expecting. The market is not forcing them to make their decisions the way they are. The market is only not willing to dance to their current tune. There is nothing in the market that is forcing EA to put NPCs into the game to advertise DLC or that IW has to cut multiplayer from their hit game. They could easily make their decisions differently

I'm sorry I refuse to believe that you actually really think this is reality.

That's a bit of a doom and gloom hyperbole. So if I just pay money every time EA puts an NPC add into my game, I will forestall all of gaming being converted into freemium (whatever that means) or micro-indy development? Pardon my saying so, but that's poppycock.

Blizzard was doing just fine on its own for almost 20 years, while still respecting their customers. They did not need EA and Activision to tell them how to run their business successfully.

Not my point.. my point is that consumers may be pushing the market into this reality.... Publishers and Developers don't just wake up and decide to do things completely differently.. it takes large companies time to react to market changes.. smaller companies force their hand over time. (re: social gaming.. freemium..micro-transactions)

Holding up Blizzard as the bastion of what everyone "should" or "can" do is kinda limiting the scope of the argument. If it was THAT easy then hell every developer would be Blizzard... and Blizzard was <400 people and <$40M in revenue prior to the phenom that was WoW.

The real question is what does Blizzard do after WoW to support their now almost 4500 person company? Think about their burn rate today... and what they need to follow up WoW with to keep all those people employed.

Ahh.. but I can see it already turning on Blizzard.. because even here the one last bastion of intelligence on the interweb there's already been ranting and raving about Blizzard trying to further monetize their franchises.

Will be interesting to see what happens to Blizzard over the next couple years.

In my opinion the problem with EA and other big publishers is they lost the ability to budget a game that is meant to turn a profit with a sales of 1 million copies. Every thing as to be bigger and bigger , big development costs with big teams, an even bigger marketing costs so is no surprise that they only want games that sell ate least million copies. But unlike you I'm not concerned if there is a will there is way, other smaller developers with smaller budgets will develop games for mid sized audiences, distribution cost are going down with the digital age so maybe EA and others will not develop those types of games that a big audience, but not big enough, likes others will take there place.

muttonchop wrote:
Chief Wiggum wrote:

I like DLC.
I like micropayments.

But for some reason I do not like the two things together. And especially if the DLC is available right after game launch. That just telegraphs, "MoneyGrab" to me. Don't hold some content back, just so you can charge for it upon or near release date of the game. Me: 'Thanks, I just paid $50.00; and you want... wha??'

Here's the problem with this assumption: if a game comes out today, then all development on that game stopped months ago.

First the game needs to go through all the necessary testing procedures, then it needs to be printed and distributed to retailers. During this time most of the developers, writers, artists, designers, etc. will no longer be contributing to the game: most likely the only people working on it will be QA and a handful of the original development team doing bug fixes. Heck, certain people will probably finish their work on the game long before it enters the QA process.

The company isn't going to pay all these developers and content creators to sit around doing nothing, so they'll start working on something else: maybe a new game, maybe more content for an existing game. If it's a small enough project, it's entirely possible that it can be finished and tested by the time that the original game ships. This isn't content that was "held back", it's content that was created after the original game was finished. When you pay your $50, you're paying for the game that went gold months, maybe even a year ago. There's no reason to feel entitled to any DLC they create between then and now, any more than you would be entitled to a portion of their next game.

Edit: V-O beat me to it!

Not only did V-O beat you to it, but someone from Bioware said the same thing a few weeks ago. The game went into code-lock months ago and then work began on DLC.

I get the feeling that people would feel better about the exact same DLC coming out months after release. Personally, if the DLC is done and entertaining, I'm happy that they have stuff ready right away.

billt721 wrote:

I get the feeling that people would feel better about the exact same DLC coming out months after release. Personally, if the DLC is done and entertaining, I'm happy that they have stuff ready right away.

Agreed. Honestly, my opinion of a game improves when I see DLC come out this quickly. Where others see a shameless cash-grab, I see a company that is using their resources effectively and committing to ongoing content updates.

I'm waiting for Micro-Transactions that enable DLC downloads.. you pay to get the opportunity to then pay to access DLC.

On a pay per use console.

First of all it is cool to see some many coffee grinders and interns posting on this. This is how I feel about the matter, I payed x dollars and got a complete experience. There is additional content I can buy and I wanted it so I did. Getting angry about this is like getting angry when George RR Martin writes a story and you buy it, later you find out that he is writing short stories set in the same universe that take place before the books you are reading. These stories might shed some light on what is going on in his current series but aren't necessary for the main plot. If you like the author and you like short stories buy the collection it's in or not. You don't lose by not making a purchase, it's just extra like dessert! No one complains that ice cream isn't included in the price of your steak.

I could jump in but PA and BNPederson have said pretty much all i wrote elsewhere - both in the GWJ forums and various other outlets.

I also agree with that guy who wrote something about graphics whores bringing the games industry to its knees.... whoever he was.....

I'm perfectly OK with DLC and even day one DLC. I just wish the price seemed to match up better with the amount of content I was getting. I also wish the experience of actually getting it was a lot less cumbersome (EA store in particular is bad to me). Finally, I am VERY worried about transferring my DLC to my new computer.

As a side note, the presence of DLC in a game I am on the fence about buying might prevent my from buying it.

Baaspei wrote:

If it brings you joy, support it.

Ice cream for my wife and I? $11. Staring at each other knowing that we want to explore relationships with other non-player characters in Dragon Age until midnight? Priceless (well actually $7).

HAH!! Love this.

Great article Ely. I admit that after reading the first two pages I had to resort to skimming the rest. I've never seen a forum thread with so many dense and for the most part intelligent posts. But I need to get back to playing Dragon Age rather than read people debate whether they should complain about DLC for Dragon Age.

Just wanted to say I second the sentiment that whoever's looking at Warden's Keep as an example of a company trying to rip off or insult their customers is borderline nutso. I'm a penny pincher, a coupon clipper, but I saw enough value in a game like World of Warcraft or Ever Quest that I didn't balk at a subscription rate, an I sure as hell am not going to balk at an option to buy more content for Dragon Age. If a company does right, and delivers a product like Dragon Age, it's worth my continued support. I got way more value out of the game than I bought it for. I'll pay my $7 with a smile on my face, knowing that Bioware has got even more content for this game coming down the pipeline.

Duoae wrote:

I also agree with that guy who wrote something about graphics whores bringing the games industry to its knees.... whoever he was.....

;)

IMAGE(http://rps.net/QS/Images/Smilies/combust.gif)

This is a fantastic discussion. I LoL'd, I snarled, I wept. Awesome.