Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Speaking of Moira, a lot of people seem to think she is annoying. I cannot for the life of me see why, as she is one of the few characters I actually remember from FO3 and I found her questline to be some of the most fun I had in the whole game.

I imagine it's her high/squeaky voice and indefatigable optimism. People love to hate on those.

The only solution is voting with your wallet. Don't buy pay mods. Don't buy games that have them. If enough people agree with you, the idea *will* be shelved. If enough people don't care and buy them anyway that means you are in the minority.

Why do you think you should be allowed to force your minority opinion on the majority of people? Why do you think because you happen to not like something, people who DO like it and DO want it can't be allowed to have it? Why should the angry minority be allowed to dictate what the market can sell and buy just because they can shout really loud?

That's a strange direction to take the argument. This seems like one of the few times the vocal, outraged group could be the majority.



Oi, forsaken, please stop with the 'militant' crap. The only suggestion of harassing people was made facetiously, mockingly, and the amount of spin in calling organizing/encouraging people to boycott beth over this 'militant' is rather insulting.
The first time was fine, I'm game when it comes to portraying myself in a negative light from time to time, but when people are taking it seriously and it causes misunderstandings I've got a problem.

[forsaken1111]

Alright then. How was I to know you weren't serious?

Now isn't the time to become all militant in my opinion. I mean you can do whatever you want of course, I just won't be marching with you.

The more militancy, the sooner, the better. Just how it is.
I doubt they'll be stupid enough to give more of a warning than they already have, I'm kind of surprised he said what he did.

This thread has been all over the place, some people calling for boycotts of everything bethesda but somehow I should have read your mind and known you were joking.

As I said before, I completely agree that not all DLC is created and some is great (burial at Sea), but there's a lot that isn't.  I, and I'm sure few others, have problem with quality DLC. The problem is Day1 DLC and 'DLC that's really just finishing the game off' - there's obviously good and bad, and I'm talking about the bad.

As for reassigning the team - that makes no sense. They know the DLC is going to be made, why reassign the team for a month to some other project, then reassign them again back to the first game to make DLC? Just get them started on the DLC right away, get it finished quicker. It's better for everyone, including the consumer

This, and my bit about cut content is aimed at on-disk DLC. They're basically saying 'here's the game, we've included it all, but if you actually want all of it it's actually more'.
Mass Effect 3 was terrible for this - the From Ashes DLC was already on disk and contained a major story which added a lot to the game/plot. Taking it out seemed very, very much an afterthought to grab more cash (otherwise they wouldn't have included it on disk!) and that's the kind of thing that really grates. Then there was the 'ending' DLC ontop of that.

No, I don't expect them to just give me things for free, but I certainly don't expect them to keep withholding major bits of the game from me until I pay more for them.

Fair enough, and if they are withholding major parts of the game that would be a problem. But how do you know they are? Are you privy to the production schedule? What if they had a separate team dedicated to producing that From the Ashes DLC and it took nothing away from the team developing the game?

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Yeah, I adopted it for that post because the argument was closing, at least we knew what it meant in that context & technically it could fit so "fuckit I'll be 'militant'".
But then the harassing bit was misinterpreted & the meaning got futzed up and suddenly there are -militants- in the thread.
:I
Sorry about that, & thank you

[scriver]

As stated, Day1 and "on-disk" DLC are often additional products they've had people working on once their other assignments were finished. The idea that you're somehow entitled to getting these products for free is ridiculous. Time, effort, and cost went into producing them. What company would pay people to develop more products just to give them away?
[...]
It does seem that way. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

Bolded: And nobody ever suggested that. Stop strawmanning people.

Oh, and congratulations on being the first to drop the "entitlement!" buzzword.

Er...

I said that after reading this:

but DLC is exactly as bad as we thought it would be. Day1 and on-disk DLC  and content that should be in game is (luckily becoming 'was') rife.

Emphasis mine.

But alright. Maybe I misunderstood? Looked like he said day 1 and on-disk DLC content should be part of the released game.

Part of the game that you pay for. That does not equal for free.

[forsaken1111]

Yeah, I adopted it for that post because the argument was closing, at least we knew what it meant in that context & technically it could fit so "fuckit I'll be 'militant'".
But then the harassing bit was misinterpreted & the meaning got futzed up and suddenly there are -militants- in the thread.
:I
Sorry about that, & thank you

No worries, honest misunderstanding on my part.

Part of the game that you pay for. That does not equal for free.

If it is additional content which isn't part of the game but developed to be sold separately, why should it be included in the game?

Say I am a writer for mass effect 3. I finished the primary writing work ages before the art guys probably because art takes forever. So they could either

A. Put me on a new game
B. Get me working on writing for a DLC
C. Let me go/stop paying me

If they come to me after I finish my mass effect writing and say "Hey guy we're planning to release some DLC for the game as well. Why don't you write for that?

Okay, so now they're still paying me and I am working on writing for the DLC. Happy for me, I'm getting paid. Happy for them, they have a second product in the pipeline and are efficiently using resources (me). The art guys finish up their stuff. Management has the same choice. The art guys start working on DLC art for the stuff I'm writing. Level design, voice acting, scene setting, modelling, etc. Now we're all being paid to develop a second product while the main game is being finished up, bugs being squashed, etc.

And hey, the main game was delayed. Well that sucks but my stuff and art guy's stuff is already done. We finish up the DLC we're working on early enough so they decide to offer it at the same time as the main game.

So tell me why, in this scenario, you should get the DLC as part of the main game? It is a second product developed while the first product finished.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but it could and often does. Just because DLC is available on day 1 doesn't mean it stole anything from the main game.

[penguinofhonor]

I mean, there is precedent for gamers getting militant about this exact issue and throwing tantrums and harassing people. Why not assume the worst? People have been doing that with everyone else involved.

[scriver]

Let me answer that with this:

my bit about cut content is aimed at on-disk DLC.

I mean, there is precedent for gamers getting militant about this exact issue and throwing tantrums and harassing people. Why not assume the worst? People have been doing that with everyone else involved.

Yes, assuming people here on this forum is about to form a terrorist group is definitely the same as assuming a business will attempt to make profit.

[Graknorke]

I'm curious, would you rather the DLC didn't exist at all, or do you just feel entitled to get it for free because they happened to start working on it between the time the game was "finished" and the time it was put up for sale?

If they were making the DLC because there were idle resources, there was no extra cost. If it was ready in time to be distributed with the main game there's no reason to charge for it.

[Retropunch]

As has been said, it's difficult to know how it went down unless you know the inner workings of the company. However, I personally feel that it's the outward product that matters and that's the only thing I can base my judgements on. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

If you bundle something on physical media that I've paid for, and then lock it off from me unless I pay you more money, I'm going to be pissed because it seems like you've just decided to cut out a bit of something that was obviously already ready and bundled with the game. I understand and agree with your arguments that it could be that it could just be a poorly managed schedule, but guess who's fault that is? not mine.

It's how it appears to the consumer that matters. In the case of the From Ashes DLC, it looked very, very much like it had been cut (javik had been woven into the plot quite heavily) and so to me, that's exactly what it was.

[forsaken1111]

I'm curious, would you rather the DLC didn't exist at all, or do you just feel entitled to get it for free because they happened to start working on it between the time the game was "finished" and the time it was put up for sale?

If they were making the DLC because there were idle resources, there was no extra cost. If it was ready in time to be distributed with the main game there's no reason to charge for it.

What? You think those artists and writers don't get paid? Or they're getting paid to just sit around? No, either they work on DLC or they work on a new game or (more often) they're simply let go for the time being. I know an animator for a large studio and between projects he has no job. They don't just pay him to sit there waiting.

Any time there is work being done there are costs accrued, even if the work being done is unpaid the equipment costs money to operate and the building costs money to keep open. There's no such thing as 'no extra cost'. And if the work being done wasn't part of the initial costing for the project, then there would have to be a very compelling reason to just give it away for free.

When you guy buy a car do you ever hear "Well we had a few slow days so we had one of our shop techs upgrade the engine and put on some aftermarket parts. No additional cost because he was idle anyway." Not a perfect analogy but the situation doesn't lend itself well to real world analogies.

[penguinofhonor]

When did I say that? "Militant" does not always mean terrorism. People use it very often to describe atheists who are dicks on social media.

[Graknorke]

What? You think those artists and writers don't get paid? Or they're getting paid to just sit around?

Misread what someone posted earlier. Thought that someone said that it was indeed the latter.

When you guy buy a car do you ever hear "Well we had a few slow days so we had one of our shop techs upgrade the engine and put on some aftermarket parts. No additional cost because he was idle anyway." Not a perfect analogy but the situation doesn't lend itself well to real world analogies.

I think that a design would be a better analogy than a physical product, since that is more in line with what a game is. Maybe an architect or something. You ask for a house designing and she takes a quote, gives a time limit of a couple of months and then gets working. 7 weeks in she calls up and says she's done and will meet up with you at the agreed end date. She shows you the design and it looks nice enough, but then she tells you that she's made some improvements in the last week. And since the thing was finished a week ago, the improvements cost extra.
Yes, she can offer you that older one as the final product, but surely you couldn't help feeling short-changed by the whole thing. It's easy to go from "doing extra after you're finished" to "declaring an arbitrarily early 'finished' point" without actually changing any of what happens.

[Sergius]

When did I say that? "Militant" does not always mean terrorism. People use it very often to describe atheists who are dicks on social media.

Exactly. Atheist "dicks" == suicide bombers, that's what's implied. "Hey you guys don't just shut up, you're militant."

[penguinofhonor]

Or they could be implying the dictionary definition of "vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause"? I understand that definition probably came from a dilution of the more violent meaning, but it is a completely normal thing to criticize someone's behavior as militant without implying that they are creating terrorist cells or something.

[Sergius]

Dictionary definition: "combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods"
Word origin: "engaged in warfare".

EDIT: In the case you described it is used specifically by people using a double standard, where they consider the same behavior in themselves to be "moderate", but on the opposite side "militant".