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

You can hear people on TWiT lament the death of the Hi Fi stereo. Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo still make amazing stereo components. The issue is that 90 percent of the audio listening public is on 10 dollar headphones plugged into an MP3 Player or more often a Cell Phone.

That is the split videogames, especially hardware is facing and will continue to face. Our parents loved their 700 dollar stereo system, eardrum spliting amps. Now we have iTunes and desktop speakers. Now the number one accessory in a car is not the speaker system, but the MP3 player dock.

Right now, you can see the split in Games, just as in Music. There are the companies adapting and riding the trend. There are those trying to buck the trend and either get as much money while they can or make the vain attempt at changing consumer behavior. Let me tell you now, only one of these groups will be sitting where Apple has been for close to a decade.

I have no issue with a bit of DLC extra on Day One. My impression is that the core game itself is done and being tested / patched up weeks before the ship date. While the main team is focused on that, it seems that splinter teams are given the go-ahead to focus on DLC items. I believe this is what happened with Warden's Keep in the DA:O example.

I think game buyers just have to recognize that this model of DLC options is going to expand.

I think the Uncharted 2 example is the only faulty one you listed. A heavily subsidized first party published title like that will see a version 3 regardless of Day one DLC or not.

The interesting thing for me is how far can a company push an IP without knocking it over the edge. The theme of 'monetizing' an IP is in the news loud and clear with Activision's Kotick declaring Call of Duty a game that 'gamers want to pay more for' yet again.

Excuse me. This seems another example of an executive team losing sight of how far they can push an IP. Call of Duty has a great track record (for many). It sells like hotcakes for sure, but I think part of CoD's popularity is #1) its quality and #2) the fact that there is a lot of game in that box. It's a singular community that embraces the ability to open the box and play, play, play.... I hate seeing a franchise I have enjoyed potentially going onto the sacrificial altar of a reality check, but if Kotick's team actually are drunk with the coolaid that tells them gamers want to pay more for additional multiplayer modes, they have hit that point where reality and arrogance collide.

I don't see the doom and gloom in the future of the gaming market. All markets are tightening up right now, and gaming is just one more where disposable income is being strained for the average consumer. Over-tread IPs and ones that get pushed too far for greed will whither on the vine. Meanwhile, games that have that day one DLC, good quality DLC, will continue to be around. Where one company falls, another will rise. The gaming industry is dynamic enough for that.

Thank you to Elysium for the rant - overdone though it may have been. Thanks to PA and everyone else who's thinking this through and sharing some great thoughts. And thank you to anyone who's as crazy as me and actually read every post.

Now for my meaningless ideas:

Elysium wrote:

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.

First off: there will be games in the future. People will pay for them. Many will be made by large development studios owned by even larger production companies; others by independent developers beaming their wonderful creations directly to you (sidenote: digital distribution makes me happy). But this hellish land from Elysium's nightmares will not be. Mind you, there will be many a game that is free-to-play with microtransactions making it profitable. There will be some with subscriptions, and many will maintain the pay-once policy (though perhaps one day without the box and disc). But it is a bit ridiculous to expect that a game would actually sell were it to be as hobbled and user-unfriendly as one with the "features" Elysium mentions. What will happen is what should: companies will try to make money, doing so in various ways (Activision may raise prices while Valve lowers them, while others give you a game for free and ask for a dollar for you to change your toon's hair to a pink mohawk); gamers will buy games that they think are worth the money.

Personally, I'm not too concerned. I like things that lots of other people like. I know there is a market for what I want to buy, and knowing that, I know things will be made for me and my kind. And I don't think you need worry, Elysium. Good, risky games like Brutal Legend will be made. But they'll have to be made in a way that risks less and costs less. No games are made with the intention to lose money, and given the relative youth of the industry, I feel that developers and publishers have a ways to go in terms of better understanding what is marketable, and what will flop.

In the meantime, I don't feel guilty for not buying any of the Fallout3 DLC, nor do I feel guilty for waiting to buy Dragon Age until the price drops. I can't play everything, so I figure out what I want to buy and decide what I think it's worth - and rarely is any game worth the initial purchase price to me. I'll happily wait for a price drop or sale, and enjoy the game just the same as everyone else. And I'm happy knowing that this sort of mentality - being able to place a value on something - is what will ensure there will always be games that I want to play.

Scratched wrote:

I think I've seen it somewhere that the advertising budget has a direct relationship with the amount a product will sell. Maybe EA need to make Activision-blizzard's advertising company an offer they can't refuse.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/marketing-influences-game-revenue-three-times-more-than-high-scores

I have a limited time to read all the thoughtful replies to this post, and I haven't seen this broader point made yet, so I wanted to add it before I have to get back to work. Apologies if someone else made the same point and I missed it.

I think there's an economic issue that's larger than the gaming industry at play here. I'm not bashing capitalism, because I haven't seen another model that works better yet, but one of the side effects of relentless profit-making is exactly this sort of situation. Publicly held companies are driven to make more money every year, while a small/independent/private studio could make a steady profit each year, and not take sh*t from investors about pulling in, say, a million bucks in profit a year, and not 1 million next year, 1.2 million the year after that, then 1.6 million, 2 million, etc.

The profit-making arms race has led to this kind of corporate/conglomerate madness about ever-increasing revenue, and I don't know how long that's sustainable in any industry. You build out until it collapses, or contracts, and smart companies will try to find the niches where profit can be made again.

Imagine if CCP's Eve Online HAD to be as profitable as WoW, or the project would get canned, or wouldn't get made in the first place. You've got to be a certain size of rapacious corporate entity to dismiss the profits CCP makes. It might not be jaw-dropping money compared to EA or Activision, but it seems like it's been a pretty good ride for those guys.

I'm sure people here can come up with plenty of examples of other studios making money on a realistic profit model for their situation.

EA and Activision might say "Screw it, it's not worth our time making smaller games, or making smaller profits", and some might interpret that as the end of PC gaming, or console gaming, or hardcore gaming. But, I think, as soon as there's a vacuum in the industry, someone else will be looking to fill it, looking to profit at a more reasonable rate than what Megacorp X requires.

We'll have peaks and valleys, market expansion and market contraction, but I don't think we have to fear an industry doomsday.

I'm not trying to be sanguine about the people involved in the Megacorp meatgrinder; I have great sympathy for the individuals caught up in the economic maelstrom. It's competitive and difficult, and you may reap good rewards or experience devastating failure...but I think on the industry level, we'll continue to see smart people figuring out how to carve out profitable niches and pushing out good games. I can't dismiss what laid off developers are going through, and I'm not trying to do that...but maybe there's some opportunity out there as well.

I'd be worried about the industry if the gamers weren't interested any more. I'm not so worried about the mega-profit business model getting the legs knocked out from under it. There's still a huge demand for games, and I think in our capitalist system, someone's going to figure out how to meet that demand in a way that's profitable enough for them and their company, even if it's not profitable enough for EA or Activision's shareholders.

@ sithload: I think you hit the nail on the head there. I'm not worried, despite the near-sightedness of many of the large public corporations. In part that is because we're coming into a real indie-game renaissance, and I think that's only going to continue. With the Unreal Engine now available for free (to those not trying to sell a product based on it) and I can only guess relatively cheap for anyone who wants to sell something based off of it; with great indie games that appeal to a wide audience (e.g. Torchlight); with support for digital distribution and new models to generate revenue, all this adds to great games being made to fill the void where large corporations may feel to see genuine opportunity. And like you said, just because it's not enough money for an EA doesn't mean it isn't plenty to keep fine folk like those at CCP happy and in business. One of the great things about this business is that there are plenty of people who aren't in it for the business. It's not about getting rich, it's about creating things that others enjoy.

Is DLC anything different from Expansion Packs writ small? i think the biggest thing that the developer should remember is to treat the gamer with some respect. For instance, I love the Heroes of Might and Magic series. I don't have a lot of time in my life so I never really liked the campaign that came with the game. I played the scenarios over and over and when the publisher created an expansion pack with a game randomizer I happily paid for that. I figured that this was something that was asked for since, if I can remember correctly, they advertised it heavily on the packaging.

It gave me more use out of the game and I was happy to buy the expansion pack. I also bought the next version of the game. I was surprised to see that they left out the randomizer. I felt (correctly or not) that if it was a highly sought after feature then they should build it into the game. I ended up buying the next expansion set to get the randomizer, but that was my last purchase from that series. I felt burned (again, rightly or not)

As for DA, i wonder if they had set up a system by which everyone who has DLC has a yellow sparkly coat on (or another way to easily seperate it our from a quest that was part of the original game) , the player would know in advance that the quest would cost extra. Also, I wonder how much this has to do with the fact that DA for the PC was essentially done before the consoles so the programming team had some extra time to add this quest in to the program to be released on day 1.

sithload wrote:

smart stuff

This. This x 100.

Without the constant pressure to deliver, keep delivering AND break your past record AND break your delivery record while costing me less, non-public companies (again, Poster Boy Valve) can have the healthy ecosystem to both a) develop a game it feels is right while having fun at it (read flying to Australia) and b) not feeling the monetary monkey on it's back, which again feeds into a healthy virtuous circle.

It's obvious that every single Valve employee is happy L4D2 outdid L4D by as much as it did, but no job or Department budget was riding on it.

----EDIT to ADD----

Duoae, I think you're referring to technological processes becoming cheaper because the technology itself has become cheaper. How much money and time would "Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within" need if it was made today? Surely not the $135M it cost 8 years ago.

So uhm? Moore's law?

I think conceptually DLC and what most PC gamers would think of as an expansion pack are the same. As a practical matter, they are rather different. Very rarely do they offer anything substantially different, and when you get to community driven games, you are talking about splintering the audience with each new one. Were I to buy an Xbox and Gears 2 tomorrow, it would be impossible for me to play with most GWJrs without also buying the added map packs.

I think that the more savvy of us are more resentful of the spirit than the actual practice, more than anything. Epic(not to pick on them) have just come out saying, we need DLC because this is how we plan to combat the used game market. And we really do not care if we ream our day one dedicated fans a bit more. IE, the rest of us need to spend say 100 bucks on gears to mitigate those who spent 0, or 20 dollars by renting or buying used.

And just like offensive DRM, it seems to be pissing off way more people in that dedicated group than what money is brought in from the latter.

I also think this would be less of an issue if for the expected 100 dollar annual or semi-anual investment, we were not expected to go back into the meat grinder all over again with a "sequel" which uses much the same assets, same mechanics. Valve had more growth between Episodes 1 and 2 than I have seen any genuine sequel at full price have? More than Splintercell 1, 2, 3, more than Halo.

Personally, what I see here is the heart of most of these companies have never developed, designed, maybe even played a videogame outside of a press event. It stinks of a passionless cash grab, and we all have a clear nose. All Bobby Kotik or Johnny R see are widgets. They could be selling Pepsi or Pizza or Whiskey tomorrow.

Hobbes2099 wrote:

Duoae, I think you're referring to technological processes becoming cheaper because the technology itself has become cheaper. How much money and time would "Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within" need if it was made today? Surely not the $135M it cost 8 years ago.

So uhm? Moore's law?

No, i was just saying that the market is bigger and thus there's more money up for grabs... which in turn supports larger games and higher sales numbers. People always say we should be thankful that games cost less relatively than they did in the 80s and 90s. Well, publishers and developers aren't stupid so believe me when i say that games would have become more expensive if the market didn't cover those extra expenses and also the industry knows that consumers will only pay so much for entertainment. It just appears that poor budgeting decisions (whether that's development or lack of marketing) along with discovering that gamers will actually pay more is what's resulting in higher prices now.

I just wonder what the effect of the DJ Hero flop will be at activision....

I admit I haven't read all the replies, but I did read all the article, and you may have a valid point.

Honestly, as gamer though, I felt "Warden's Keep" in Dragon Age, was a Required download, if for no other reason, and in fact, I got it for no other reason, than the party storage chest. Right now my money is tight because my roommates have skipped out on rent. I would of vastly preferred to wait a month to download the DLC, true I would of gotten it anyway, I bought the game twice before I knew we were going to be short, just for some of the pre-order exclusives (Which I REALLY disagree with, I'd like to see THOSE as pay content items, true you get them for free if you pre-order, but they aren't lost forever if you couldn't.)

But I digress in that, a Party storage is a key game mechanic, hell in a game with so much loot, lore, and legend, it Should of been available in game without DLC.

Would I of bought "Warden's Keep" without the storage? Yes, I would I'm a gamer who loves the game, and wants every bit of content for it, but I wouldn't of felt pressured to buy it, people may say no one was holding a gun to my head. But, I feel as if they were, and I hope, game developers, designers, and whoever else has a passing fancy might read this and consider the fact that yes, DLC is a great way to make money and expand on great games with new items loot, quests and so on, but that the basics of the game, should not be forced into an add-on. Especially when it makes no thematic sense to do so. The chest in "Warden's Keep" could easily have been, and perhaps still should be, for ease of access lugged around with the party in the party camp.

But I suppose I am rambling now and getting away from my core point, which is simply this, DLC is a GOOD thing, but DLC for things that should of been in the finished product, is a BAD thing, and hopefully not a sign of "Hobbled initial releases where the DLC is not just an optional quest, but key game mechanics." To me, that's what "Warden's Keep" was a way to force me to pay for a key game mechanic, that until I bought it, almost crippled me with inventory problems.

I've got Warden's Keep and I don't use the storage container. I'm not sure what you'd put there. Crafting materials stack, and you're always picking up more so dumping those in a container doesn't make sense. How many sets of armor do you need to keep? Anything I'm not using I sell. Runes? I donate the bad ones, and slot the good ones. The only thing I might store are gift items I'm holding for someone I don't have in my party yet, and salves that I'm never going to use and might as well sell anyway.
Storage is not that helpful, especially not later in the game when you can get 120 inventory slots.

What would be helpful is an item like the Baldurs Gate Scroll Case or Gem Pouch, which would allow you to store all your gems in one item slot, all your herbalism components in one item slot, your poisons in one slot, etc. A storage chest? Really not worth much, and certainly not worth kicking up a fuss about.

Perhaps you're right, but I by nature have a hoarder mentality, until I get every character in the game, and outfit them with the best gear I have available I find it hard to determine what to sell, and while potion items and such may stack when you have an an ingredient list the size of 10-20 items... it adds up, I've had to run in and out of dungeons just to cart back loot to a shop, that kinda breaks emergence for me.

I hear ya. When you only have 70-80 slots in your inventory it's rough. I bought the DLC around lvl 10, and by that time I had gotten used to running out of space, gave up on the salves for the most part and resigned myself to mid dungeon runs to town to sell stuff off. Having the chest hasn't really helped at all as far as inventory management though. For the reasons I detailed above, you still run out of space too quickly during a dungeon run.

The trick is finding ways to earn money and buy backpacks/extra inventory space early. Once you're up to 120 slots it gets better.

Joan Moldovia wrote:

Perhaps you're right, but I by nature have a hoarder mentality, until I get every character in the game, and outfit them with the best gear I have available I find it hard to determine what to sell, and while potion items and such may stack when you have an an ingredient list the size of 10-20 items... it adds up, I've had to run in and out of dungeons just to cart back loot to a shop, that kinda breaks emergence for me.

You answered your own question then.. for you the DLC in Wardens Keep is invaluable but for some others they might not care.. so who is to say what should be "basic" or "optional"

Besides running to Soldiers Peak to deposit into your party chest is somehow more reasonable "emergence" wise than leaving a dungeon to sell loot? (something I've been doing in CRPG's since the day they were made)

Sounds like nitpicking.. I suggest enjoy the game for what it is.

edit

I have all the DLC so far.. and I've used the Party chest one time... with 120 backpack slots its far easier to simply vendor stuff...I fail to see the need to hang on to items that arent upgrades and its rare to find items that "might" be upgrades.

In that sense, Torchlight wins by a mile. It was genius to be able to send your pet back up to sell everything you didn't want, and more games should learn from it's example.

Concerning the chest... well, perhaps it should have been available without the DLC, seeing as some people find no use for it, yet for other's it's important.

That would be an awesome incentive to keep "Dog" in your party in Dragon Age. I hear his DPS is decent, but being able to run away and sell stuff for you? Awesomeness.

Why do they even limit inventory? Is "you can carry a ludicrous but limited amount of stuff" really more interesting than just not having a limit?

Well said......and good points - despite my light coin purse, DLC is a lesser evil i believe.

I usually just listen to the podcast, but after hearing you guys speak about this article i had to give it a read. Also read your Anti-Review about Vanguard... lol nice.

Gonna start reading these awesome articles i guess, didnt know what i was missing.

Thanks for the podcast, been listening for 2 years now and its the only one i make sure i catch every wednesday without fail!

A Rose by Any Other Name

LarryC here once again to chime in from the Land of the Pirates.

Here where I live online content and microtransactions are just about the only way companies monetize their games. That's because of the rampant piracy - but it's also because internet penetration for the gaming public in Asia is just about 100%. You are either rich enough to buy a rig and therefore have DSL, or you're not and you play in an internet cafe, which also has DSL.

The thing I'm noticing is that there is a whole lot of brouhaha over essentially imaginary things - gamer's rights and company policy and what not. Personally, I think it's all just a little silly.

I bought Dragon Age at the local store a short time after release for about $25. Yes, that is a legal copy, I am a registered user at the Bioware servers. The purchase came with Stone Prisoner, Blood Dragon Armor, and I paid $7 for Warden's Keep, bringing me to a total of $32 for the entire game.

Yes, that is very much worth it, even considering the skewed market structure of a global release. Yes, I am very much in favor of DLC and microtransactions and I only wish that Bioware had moved more of the side quests into the microtransaction department and made the retail cheaper - maybe even free.

I wish this was so because $25 at Philippine market structure is actually reasonable - this game priced this way using this structure IS competitive with the local pirates, and if this is what needs to be done to combat piracy in the US, then so be it.

The main game itself is complete and functional, 60 hours of content with everything you could ask for. Most retail copies even include Blood Dragon Armor and Stone Prisoner, so it's not like those are retail DLC. Storage Chests can be downloaded from Bioware servers without purchasing anything. You do not need to buy Warden's Keep for the kit.

Warden's Keep could have been included in the main game but the main game itself is worth the asking price without this. In fact, it's worth the asking price without all the Bloodstone Irregular and Chantry quests.

This is how good DLC works - it is pure content. You get enough content in the box to justify the price of entry, DLC is simply more of the same game. The Storage Chest is functional, and hence, was released for free. Warden's Keep is nonessential content, and hence, can be DLC and should be DLC.

There is more DLC to come: Return to Ostagar is coming soon, and I will be buying that, too.

The only question that needs to be asked is, "Is Dragon Age worth $65 for all content?" That is because that is what a Digital Download costs on Steam with everything released so far. For many the answer is "Yes." That is the only thing that really matters as far as value is concerned, is it not?

What if, in the future, Bioware withholds content for money? Well, then, it seems reasonable to say that in the future, we as gamers should evaluate the entire bundle for value, just as we should do so NOW. Horse Armor is crap, but it was optional. As long as all DLC is, we can all always evaluate it on a case to case basis, no?

I have to wonder at anyone who would say that Warden's Keep should be in the main package. Why? Bioware is not beholden to anyone, not even its customers. It exists to make as much money as it can using whatever legal manners it wants, just like every other company in a capitalist structure. Activision is a little more obnoxious about it, but that it is, as they say, the bottom line.

Dragon Age by itself is easily worth the asking price. So Bioware should add even more content because they're morally beholden to their consumers? Why, I never heard such nonsense in my life. If they can make more money selling Warden's Keep, then more power to them.

My own gripe, really, is that Warden's Keep is too short! If Bioware could release more content in the 6 hour (per play-through) range for $7, that would be super - I would be buying their DLCs for the forseeable future. As it is, if Ostagar is of similar length, I believe it will be the last one I buy unless they drop the price a bit more.

Moreover, if they were willing to release premium content as $1 downloads, then I would be willing to purchase those as well! Hell, sell me more armor skins and such! The light armors certainly could stand to have some variety, and I don't mind paying a dollar each for 3 or 4 such skins. They might even arrange to have modders make it for them using the released tools and THEN let me buy them.

I'm good with that as well.

The crux here, really, is that at the end of the day, you are paying a set amount that Bioware is asking you for the game. The only question that needs to be asked is, is the game worth the asking price, in whatever manners Bioware is asking for it? And for Dragon Age, the answer is a resounding YES. Why should you care that Bioware is asking for it in smaller chunks? Are we all going to complain to credit card companies next?

LarryC wrote:

Smart logical stuff

Said brilliantly.

Rezzing this thread to pour a little fuel on the fire as it were. From Dubious Quality - You Heard It Here First.

In particular, why would Bobby Kotick admit publicly that not parterning with Harmonix was a mistake?

Don't think he said this casually, because I don't think Kotick says anything casually, even when it seems that way. To me, Kotick doesn't even mention this unless he's trying to set the table for something. I see two possibilities here:
1. Activision wants to be the distributor for Rock Band games when the EA agreement expires, or
2. Activision wants to buy Harmonix from Viacom/MTV Games.

It's all speculation at this point, but it does make you think maybe he's on to something.

MeatMan wrote:

Rezzing this thread to pour a little fuel on the fire as it were. From Dubious Quality - You Heard It Here First.

In particular, why would Bobby Kotick admit publicly that not parterning with Harmonix was a mistake?

It's all speculation at this point, but it does make you think maybe he's on to something.

You may have missed Kotick's recently leaked email, which I think explains a few things.

wordsmythe wrote:

You may have missed Kotick's recently leaked email, which I think explains a few things.

"ACTIVISION PRESENTS: THE DIVINE ASSKICKING: PART I: THE INFERNO: CIRCLES 1-3: THE RECKONING: KICKASS ON TOUR"

Indeed.

LarryC wrote:

The main game itself is complete and functional, 60 hours of content with everything you could ask for. Most retail copies even include Blood Dragon Armor and Stone Prisoner, so it's not like those are retail DLC. Storage Chests can be downloaded from Bioware servers without purchasing anything. You do not need to buy Warden's Keep for the kit.

Is this correct? Looking at Dragon Age's entry on the 360 Live Marketplace, the only available add-ons appear to be the priced DLC packages for Stone Prisoner, Ostagar, and Warden's Keep. Maybe this is only available for PCs?

OzymandiasAV:

Yes, it is only available for PCs. You know, the real gaming platform.