Why would that be, Arhu? Dragon Age doesn't even have multiplayer so why would the DLC be "relevant" in any way? You can play through the main game no problem w/o the DLC. You're not going to miss anything.
Same with Fallout 3. All the DLC packs for FO3 were completely optional.
Some DLC (including the one for DA) might be nice to have but relevant? Hardly.
So… which DLC packs for which CRPGs are you referring to that are "relevant for everyone"? I don't get it (unless you were referring to MMOs where DLC is in fact sometimes a must have if you want to stay competitive).

They should have held on to it. Ignorance would have been a bliss. Or they could have included it in all versions in the first place (no chance of that). They held out on the PC release too, didn't they? So why not do the same for the DLC?

Quoting from the OP:
That pretty much sounds like being part of the game to me, they could call it a mini addon even. Why would someone not want the full experience? I could understand it if the DLC was *truly* optional, like classic collector's edition content. Cloth map or poster or whatnot.
In my view the main game without its Day 0 DLC is not a complete game. The software that comes with the collector's edition (was that the one that has the DLC already included?) would be a complete game. And yes, releasing the DLC later would make all the difference.

I guess it all depends on what your definition of a "full, complete game" is.

… which makes me wonder, what if they cut the game in half and sold both pieces as Dragon Age 1 and 2 from the start, at the same time? Would you still feel that you're not going to miss anything by only playing part 1?

(That's a scary thought too, because hey, they could charge twice as much for a single game.)

I don't bother with trying to define a "complete" game. I'm not sure a useful definition is possible.

I played Batman: Arkham recently - really quite enjoyed it for a casual action title. It lasted about 10 hours or so and cost the usual price. Dragon Age should be 80 hours+ according to most (Desslock spent >120 hours for his review, most with his primary character, according to him). Does that mean I should have only paid $5 for Batman, or should I pay $500 for Dragon Age, given 10x the content?

Or should I look at sunk costs? Assassin's Creed has 400 developers versus Risen's 20 or so…maybe Piranha Bytes ripped me off only giving me 60 man-years of development work, while other games might offer >500 man-years of effort? In that sense, Piranha Bytes is charging me twice as much or more!

If Dragon Age were split in half, that would still be longer than Risen…is that fair? Plus there's a toolset, which means free community mods.

——-

All of that is silly. I simply look at a game and decide if I'm interested. If I am, I buy it. From what I can see, I'll enjoy Dragon Age enough to be worth a purchase, so I'll buy it. In fact, I'm downright impressed with some of the recent previews, so I'm happy to give them another $7 for extra content! Sounds like you're not happy to pay it - how does that change the core experience? You paid less and got less. I paid more and got more.

On the other hand, I didn't enjoy Fallout 3 enough to buy all the DLC - which doesn't bother me at all, even though my game is no longer "complete". As it is, some North American retailers have bonuses that aren't available in Australia (as far as I can see), so it was never an identical playing field to start with.

Yeah, I realize that I was ranting a bit too much. I totally get your point of view and I also understand the question of whether a game that offers more is worth more or a game that offers less is worth less. My answer to this question would be: it doesn't matter (much), but there are subjective limits to how short a game can be. Maybe I'm just too old fashioned.

For all intents and purposes, Day 0 DLC is exactly like extra content in special editions on Day 0. I always found those very questionable as well. What was the first game that had this? Baldur's Gate? Or BG2? Don't remember. What I do remember is that I had a standard edition of a game and upon hearing about extra content (maybe an item or two) in the collector's edition I felt I was missing out.


For me "a game" *) is very much like "a movie". Let's take a specific movie, for example LotR. In this light:

1. LotR theatrical release <— is like —> a game
2. LotR extended edition <— is like —> a game + addon
3. One or two extra scenes for LotR <— is like —> DLC

Now think about how you would feel in regard to various forms of DLC if they were done for the movie LotR.

Imagine, if you will, that right from the start, i.e. the premiere of LotR in cinemas across the world, there were two versions of the film shown at the same time and you could have chosen between them. Version 1 is a bit shorter and version 2 has a couple more scenes in it. Now, would you rather think that …

a) version 1 is cut (in comparison to version 2) or
b) version 2 is extended (in comparison to version 1)?


*) single player; competitive MP games like MMOs are obviously different

B. Most of the content for the EE was created after the film cut had been signed off as complete. The film cut was still great, and worth every penny to go and see.

Please re-read the quoted part in your post. I wasn't talking about the EE (which would be like a game+addon) but about another hypothetical version that had only a few more scenes in it (less than the EE) and was released on Day 0 (which means creation after the original film cut would have been impossible).

I agree that the theatrical release was worth every penny or more.

I thought that's what I was talking about - the EE did only have a few more scenes in it. I thought your analogy between it and DLC was really good actually.

@Arhu: Oo, cool hypothetical!

I have a real-life example of this, by the way: Red Cliff, a huge Chinese film about the battle of Red Cliff. Released on day zero on two versions: the long one, and the short one.

I picked the short one (two hours and change), simply because I thought the long one was a bit too much, at five hours or so.

Ok then, given the context of Day 0 DLC let's assume the EE was available at the same time as the normal cut and both were shown simultaneously in cinema. I don't know, for me there should be only one "definitive version" of one movie or game at a certain point in time. More than that would just be confusing. What if there were several different versions of Cinderella, for instance, that you had to choose from when first seeing it in cinema? Here's one in which she wears a red dress. Here's one with a blue dress. Oh, and how about this one, multi-colored with lace sleeves? You don't have to watch the multi-colored version if you don't want to …

Am I conceited in my wish to be presented one single vision when it comes to games and movies instead of being offered mushy conglomerates of varying small features simultaneously?

Interesting! Haven't heard about that one before. However, the wikipedia article hints at different target audiences, which is not what I'm thinking of when it comes to Day 0 DLC. And more importantly, the longer version was apparently not shown all at once either:

I don't really mind DLC. It's the Day Zero part of this particular DLC and Day Zero extra content in special editions that I find so questionable a practice.

So you would've been cool with it had they waited, say, a couple of months before releasing it? Okay, I guess -- that doesn't make any sense to me, but then neither does a whole lot of stuff.

Or like the situation on DVD - you go into a shop now and you can buy either the normal version or the EE version.

Heard of Blade Runner? :p

Seriously, I think choice is good. You can always choose to keep things original, but why not offer the choice to others who want more as well? That way everyone gets what they want, and even better, you only pay for what you want, rather than subsidising the cost of stuff you don't want. You want the original vision then just buy DA:O and then disconnect your computer from the internet. Pretend DLC doesn't exist and you'll be really happy :)

Yeah … I'd love to reply with a witty quote about the inscrutability of the human mind, but nothing comes up.

Say, weren't LotR 1-3 more or less ready at the same time (with some extra shootings throughout the years)? Would you have preferred to see them all on the same day so you didn't have to wait a whole year for each sequel?

Not me. I liked the anticipation. More opportunities to savor the moment.

As I said, timing makes all the difference to me. I'm not opposed to DLC or different versions per se. Just on Day 0. ;)


Oh, I do have a quote that I kept thinking about throughout this thread. It's more or less unrelated to the subject matter, but it might help in understanding other points of view. From the QDB (bash.org) —

Yes, the raw footage. A lot of work goes into editing the film.

Okay, then it probably wasn't a very good analogy. Anyway. My mind has left, my body follows.

I should agree that it was an ugly thing to do, but I guess what they did was the right thing.

They could have delayed the DLC, but they didn't. Why? Because if they delayed the DLC, all those people who were going to play the game on day-0 had to play the game again later, after the DLCs were released. For many people (except hardcore RPG fans) this is a complete waste of time. And those people who were not going to play the game again and again, wouldn't purchase the DLCs at all.
Now, more people can experience the DLCs and more people will pay for the DLCs.

To me there is a big difference if the DLC is released same time as the game or 3 months later. If it's released 3 months later I most certainly wouldn't buy it. I'm the kind of person that doesn't go back to games. I install them, play them, hopefully finish them, then uninstall them. I might get day 0 DLC but not later. I haven't ever bought DLC for that reason.

Day 0 DLC is the new anti piracy scheme. The boxed game ships in the lightest version possible and they create as many incentives as possible to want to log online and download more.

The next step is "you can't save and load games unless you're logged in". The age of offline single player games is over.

I don't think it's about anti piracy. It's about getting your money and/or data. Sims 3 is a nice example. Register your game and you get some free points for their shop and a second town. Easy and free so people will do so and perhaps come back once their free points are spent. On a second thought there might be some anti piracy tactics involved too but the main purpose is getting as much of your money as possible.

Well, it's obviously a cash-in - and since it's basically free money, it's only natural that developers are going this way.

The logic is most likely, from their perspective: we're not forcing anyone to pay for it, so how can it possibly be wrong.

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with it, though it's slightly more tasteless than so many other things we're seeing in an effort to generate extra revenue. Need I go into all the gold and platinum editions? The re-releases with minor additional content and so on? It's just the way things are.

The only thing that could be really wrong, as I see it, is if people are paying for something they don't think is worth the money. That's the danger of DLC - because the amount is typically negligble and people don't care about 5-10$ when it's about an otherwise great game that gets enhanced. That's the psychological trap.

Bioware's plans for DA so far is 3 day 0 DLCs: 2 free and 1 $. The two free DLCs, like Bring Down the Sky for ME1, aren't designed to cash-in extra money but to reward those players who buy a genuine copy of the game.