Dragon Age - Up to 2 Years DLC Planned
 

An interesting mini-interview at MTV with BioWare's Greg Zeschuk telling them they plan up to 2 years' worth of DLC for Dragon Age:
…in related news, the official site has a list of GDC coverage, in case you missed something:

• USA Today: Dragon Age: Origins Named a GDC "Blockbuster"
• GameSpot: Dragon Age: Origins Impressions
• G4: Extended Look at BioWare's Latest RPG
• IGN: Dragon Age: Origins Preview
• GameDaily: Role-Playing for the Masses
• GameSpy: Coming Into Focus

More information.

Am I the only one annoyed by this whole DLC thing getting popular?

My reading of that was that they are planning to take 1.5 - 2 years after release before releasing any DLC.

You're not alone. I'm more troubled by the prospect of games becoming thinner and thinner at largely the same price while the full volume of content is chiseled off into DLC.

I don't know that I've come across any titles that are outright guilty of this, but I can think of a few that come close (I'll be nice and not start a flame war by mentioning them).

Haha DLC, they been planning this game for what seems like 8 years! Dlc should take what, 3 or 4? People will be playing on platforms that no longer support their game

I agree with you. This is getting ridiculous.

I'm the kind of gamer that wait until a game is apparently patched for the last time before playing it. It was bad enough with patches, but these DLC things make it worse since I'm not intererested in replaying a game, or even just get back to a game months later, simply for a small new bit of content.

Hey, DLC is OPTIONAL!! I have never bought any, and doubt I ever will, so don't sweat over it. If the original game is worthy, buy it. If not, don't and forget about DLC; it won't make a poor game any better!!

See how much it costs and what it is, first. Whether it's horse armor or a new area or what, and whether it's five bucks or free or some other complex variation thereof.

Knowing what I know, I'm pleased, but I've seen enough things change (scope cuts, pricing changes) that I will in no way be talking about it before someone publicly announces what it is.

Except (he says, dangerously coming close to a line) that the goal of Dragon Age's DLC is to get you to keep playing the game, or at least keep you coming back periodically, until the next game ships. We don't have multiplayer, so the only way to do that, beyond making it a good game to start with, is to make DLC that you want to get and play. You can't do that with horse armor. And there's a sizable chunk of the team that has already moved off of the main game (as in, for several months now) and onto the DLC.

(No argument about DLC in general. I liked the free Neverwinter modules released by the team. I never bought premium modules, though. I've never paid for DLC in my life, and don't see it happening soon, except possibly if I get Rock Band.)

A lot of DLC for a game which - so everybody assumes - will have a huge installed base is without a doubt a clever business decision.

I agree with both Patrick and Gorath. I wouldn't buy horse armor, etc, nor would I buy something like The Pitt- heck, why would I? I reached the level cap LONG before the end of FO3 so what incentive do I have. However, I bought both both expansions for NWN and if they had been a form of DLC I would still have bought them. With Team Corwin, we have played nearly every half decent MP mod ever made and a few adapted SP mods as well. That sort of DLC does keep me playing the game. Pity there's no MP with DM facility Patrick, that was the greatest innovation Bioware ever created which was totally nerfed in NWN2.

Personally, I prefer expansion packs to DLC. Usually better value for the money and usually grander scope. I have payed for DLC but only on very rare occasions where the value was present. I want to see what they have to offer before buying but I assume they are are going to do more than just horse armor. I want to at least play the game first before deciding if I want DLC. If there is replay value then we can talk DLC.

I have no problem with DLC at all, as long as the original game doesn't feel cheap or incomplete.

I don't see the DLC releases as something I was cheated for when I bought the original game, since the development of the DLC will have taken place after the original release, and the cost for developing it wasn't included in the budget for the original game. Developing game content cost a lot of money - someone has paid for the piece of DLC to be developed, and therefore it's completely fair to charge money for it. And as Corwin says, it's optional.. buy it if you want it, otherwise leave it.

From a developers point of view I can easily understand why it is done. I mean, at the moment the industry suffers from incredibly high production costs for games of the quality that people has come to expect - both regarding features, polish and graphics. So either you score a *major* hit, or you will be in trouble due to the high start-up cost of a game production. However, once you're actually near the end of a project the team will be extremely efficient with the tools, the engine and the asset pipeline. So developing small pieces of high quality additional content can maybe be done relatively cheap for the company.. and it's a way to try and minimize the risk of a major financial failure :)

Here's my take:

There's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of DLC - and as with most things, it's all about how you put it into practice.

There's no mystery related to why developers are headed this way, as it's undoubtedly a relatively low-cost way of getting extra profit.

I doubt many of us have any illusions about Bioware and their motivations for being in the business these days, so I don't see any element of surprise here, nor a reason to be disappointed.

no, iam even more annoyed then you are.
god, i do hate the mass/sheeps

I am a strong hater of DLC. It just doesn't work.

Since the way I look at a game, when I play through a game no matter which one it is, I want a complete experiance from beginning to end, I am not interessed in a DLC which adds one area I already completed the story and my playthrough of the game…… Episodic content which continue the story is another thing though……..

No problem with DLC at all.

If the game isn't a complete experience for my money out of the box then I won't buy it. If it is, and DLC extends that, then I'll buy the DLC or not, dependant on how much value it gives me. Market forces work well :)

Hmmm - Let's see just how much DLC we get. Mass Effect DLC ? We got promised a lot of DLC for Mass Effect - so far we've only get 1 DLC - about the Batarians.

Let's hope that the DLC for DA: Origins will be more than for Mass Effect….

So, does that mean we'll get a 8-10 hours campaign coming with the original game, soon to be filled with DLC packs? :P

I fear that things won't be translated ("oh, that again !").

My primary issue with DLC is that they usually fall into the category of "too little, too late". By the time the Bring Down the Sky DLC arrived for Mass Effect I had already completed the game 3½ times AND it had been collecting dust on the shelf for more than 2 months. The same was true for the Fable 2 DLC, the Overlord DLC and let's not forget about Episode 1 and 2 for Half Life 2.

The Tomb Raider Underworld DLC and the Prince of Persia Epilogue was timed better … too bad I got the PC version of both and the DLCs are only for the Xbox360.

However, the almost weekly track packs for music games like Rock Band, Guitar Hero, Libs or whatnot is a great way to keep the games fresh. I know that comparing a story based campaign for an RPG with a few tracks of 3-5 minutes each, is very unfair … but perhaps the point is that certain games are suited for DLC while others are not.

I'm with GG here, but I would add my concern. As DLC grows more popular, I can see game companies restricting the 'mod' capabilities in their games so they can do more than what modders can. Otherwise, it'd be tough for them to sell something that other people can do for free (and probably better).

Is anyone where legitimately excited about this?

DLC is obviously geared towards console gamers, who think it's the best thing ever, to pay for extra content, while us playing in PC are used to free extra content being released for every game. Maybe that's another reason why they delayed the PC version to coincide with the consoles.

Excited? Maybe, I wouldn't use that word. Hopeful is a better word. If the game is what it is promised to be. Then yes adding in more DLC is a nice bonus.

I felt the same way most of you do when I first heard about expansion packs. Specifically Ultima 7 and Serpent Isle's expansion packs. I thought why not just have this in the original game. But as it turns out I was dead wrong. I come to look foreward to most expansion packs being released.

As for Bioware and DLC. I would like to see if they offer more than they did for Mass Effect before I judge or scream "The sky is falling." Maybe I'm wrong again and DLC is just a cheap way of cutting down the cost of the original game and maybe it is a nice way of getting back into the game before the release of the next sequel. One thing is for sure though, it had better be more than ME's DLC. I think I finished that "extra content" in under 2 hours.

Why on earth would it?

I'm pretty sure PC games had DLC before console ones did.

Someone on another board just inspired me to this thought :

DLC = substitute for DRM

Think about it …

It's basically the almost same as a game with an MP part …

On the one hand fans complain that many of these games are too thin and too shallow and on the other they're turned off when developers announce they're creating and adding more. So you kind of have to stop and wonder, what's the deal?

I think the fans have it right, and these games tend to be way, way too simple. If they were complex enough that you couldn't possibly experience everything the game had to offer in one play through -- and if the parts you did were replayable and fun -- then I think fans would welcome the idea of adding even more.

In theory, I have no problem with DLCs. I agree that I have a tough time with wanting to wait for all content to be available before I start my first play through. With many games, I can manage that - Dragon Age I will not and will be buying ASAP. But that's really more about me than anything, even if several of us share that particular affliction. It is certainly more pronounced with DLCs, however, because, with the exception of a few like Night of the Raven, expansion packs did not add to the OC but added content to be played after the OC. DLCs, however, have tended to be things that meld into the OC more so than expansions. So that does make those of us who like to have a "complete" OC experience on the first play through a might grumbly.

Additionally, the way things have gone since the onset of DLCs has cast them in a very negative light, to my eyes. While my complaints are subjective, I feel they are valid. Generally, DLCs have not had a value in line with their cost. Let's face it, the cost of the game engine, development tools, learning process of the development team, etc. was all covered by the original game. I believe (and very much hope) I'm not trivializing the value of the work of DLC developers, but what I've seen content-wise from DLCs has looked to me like a cash grab.

When compared with good expansion packs (and let's remember there were lots of awful expansion packs), DLCs in general and so far just haven't seemed to have the same value to price ratio. Could the Dragon Age DLC(s) break that trend? Let's hope so.

Bah, call me skeptical but what all this DLC crap talk boils down for me is this: 'we are too lazy to finish the game, so you'll get it in small bits spread over the years instead'. My question is, who will give a darn, though?

After reading what I just wrote, I guess I'd better amend my position to "I guess I do have a problem with DLCs, I just didn't realize it when I started this post". :)

That was well put, think, and speaks for most of the rest of the experienced fans.

That's where we're at with the current paradigm. What I mean is, there's nothing unique about how this software is designed and made. Like everything else, these programs are created with only one version in mind. So "additional" content can only ever be just that -- additional.

Compare that to how fans imrove the RPGs they love, by modifying them (resulting in varieties of versions, most of which are incompatible with each other). Ideally, instead of designing CRPGs and their additional content like every other program, in one big single version, this stuff would be designed the way fans enjoy it most -- in variety.

Except you can easily copy the DLC or download it from the internet so it doesn't even have this postive effect. Down with DLC :P If it's not a fancy new armor for my horse of course,,, that's worth a lot of money!!

Nonsense. DLC is optional, DRM is forced.

Nobody has to buy the DLC content. You don't think it's worth the money? Fine, don't buy it - and you can still enjoy the full game.

Really? What planet is that that you are living on? *grabs wallet to buy a ticket* ;)

Seriously, the way I remember my gaming history is that the concepts of episodic content and DLC were conceived during a time when development budgets and development schedules exploded. Developers and publishers at one point began to see a need to get the most out of their existing, expensive technology (game engine, art assets and so on).
The "one shot at retail" model did (does) not work out for a lot of not so hot selling games and developing another, new game with new tech will typically consume two or three or even more years due to the increasing complexity of the task.

So what do you do? Right, they began to look for alternative and additional sources of revenue. Since games don't have much of a secondary market (unlike movies where you have a huge seconday market due to DVD and merchandise sales), they had to think up ways how to make the most of the existing tech/product (often times negatively referred to as "milking").
And that's just how it is nowadays. It has nothing to do with consoles.
The existence of DLC is more like a logical evolutionary step in video gaming in general (independent of platform).

I agree, I mean look at the compaines folding because of the one shot win or lose type of situation PC gaming is in. It's crazy because they are spending almost as much money for AAA games as they are for AAA movies, yet they only have one shot to get a return on their investment.

I think the biggest reason so many people are opposed to DLC has to do with the horse armor incedent. They're afraid that companies will intentionally leave out features in their game so that they can sell it at a later date. The Sims is great at this. The first game is the basic skeleton and is only fleshed out to its potential in future expansion packs. Some don't mind this, some do. But I know I won't pay for horse armor or tiny little quest like the Fallout 3 DLC. I WILL pay for premium modules like in Neverwinter Nights. Those were great.

People seem to be forgetting that you don't have to buy it if you don't want to and all this doom and gloom for the industry is just plain BS. Why is it everyone has got to go for the most negative outcome possible?

Hi skeptical. I disagree with this sentiment. Most development houses I'm sure are not lazy, maybe mismanaged but not lazy. Things are complex enough that it takes forever to put out a AAA title that has just a couple of hours of content. Likely publishers now want a steady stream of cash like what The Sims or any MMO provides and they think DLC is the answer today.

Regarding DLC for a single player story driven game that is going to be moddable, I do have my doubts but we shall see.

LOL, "Horse Armor" is an official entry in the gaming lexicon. When we're old and gray and calling "Horse Armor!" on something, little 12 year old noobs will be pullin on our proverbial shirt tails asking us what that means. I was there for Horse Armor, in fact I bought it!

As far as DLC goes, my opinion tends to side w/ "The Negative Ones" on this because just like expansion packs, I feel it's just purposefully left-out content to bilk us for later. I dont truly know this, but it just seems like that assumption just cant be ALL wrong. Millions of pissed off and paranoid geeks cant be all wrong.

Maybe we can… = ]

In any case, I'll end up friggen buying the stuff anyway if it strikes me as something worthy. At least it all get's run thru the mill by someone somewhere and reviewed, like the Fallout DLC's which thankfully someone else suffered thru so I wouldnt be suckered!

:D

Sims expansion packs or normal RPG EP? RPG EPs have proven a long time ago that they add a lot more content or gaming goodness;) It also gives the developers more time to put in more than they were able to with the first release.

Sims EPs are similar except they could of added a hell of a lot more than they do in the original game. That's my biggest complaint with them. The EPs released normally do add a lot to the game.

I'm like you, I'll end up buying the DLC or EP unless some review says to stay far away.

I can understand a bit of skepticism regarding DLC. Certainly I would be leery of any game where it seemed like the focus was more on offering pay-to-download content than a real game, myself. A few comments, though:

1) For Dragon Age's PC users, you will have access to the toolset and thus plenty of free content if that's your preference. I'm not aware of any arbitrary restrictions in the toolset's capabilities, beyond those which only third-party programs provide us (we can't, for instance, provide an animation suite in the toolset, as neat as that'd be).

2) I think one could look to NWN to see what our idea of DLC is, really. The NWN Live Team put out adventures for NWN and kept the patches coming for the original game for years (patches which included plenty of that content for the toolset's use later on).

3) At the end of the day, if we haven't made the DLC worthwhile, then the answer is simply not to purchase it -- as was already mentioned. Same goes with the original game. Dragon Age is a huge game, but if you really feel it's been somehow stripped down so we could make you pay for it piecemeal, then simply take a pass. While I suppose some people will buy anything they're handed without question, complaining about what other people are willing to purchase because you'd rather receive it for free seems a little… self-serving? So is making money through stuff like DLC, I know, but that's what companies do and we're not pretending otherwise. ;)

Nice to hear there's no pretense, at least ;)

That alone goes a long way.