Mass effect dev: "Stop thinking you're the producer."

[ablac]

No its like saying because you paid to see the last two movies they should leave in scenes important to the story rather than remove them to be sold later. Its a bad analogy to start with but thats the correct view of it. They removed it from the original game specifically to exploit the fan base because the day one dlc is important to the stroy. Thats damn justification to be pissed off with them.

not really, I highly doubt the DLC character is central to the story. It's more like going to a movie and then complaining because they deleted scenes from it and you don't want to wait till the DVD comes out to see the deleted scenes. Plus you already paid to see the movie so why do you have to buy a DVD just to see them?

I mean they shot them for the movie anyway!

Look can we please kill this analogy here because it really isnt a very good one to work with. Games are not movies they are games and come with very large differences. Point is it has been categorically proved now that the DLC was made to be initially in the game because, without downloading anything, you can change a small amount of code and unlock the character http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRRpGlmtws8 . (sorry dont know how to do things such as embed the video, not sure if thats the right term, please dont try to teach me here). Now that video could of been faked but because it has not as of yet been disproven to my knowledge i doubt that is the case. This means that rescources to make the game were used to make content not in the game but rather to be sold externally. Yes they can do that but it is an exploitive way to treat consumers and I dont like it. If I buy it then I encourage them to do it further and if I pirate i have no conviction so boycott it is. Itis a prothean teamate and those who have played the game know that is damn important to the story. It may not be central but it sure as hell is important or at least, involving a living prothean, is meant to seem so to garner more sales. It is not entitlement to disagree with this practice and such blatant disrespect or value for consumers is insulting. I would also like to add that dlc is fine so long as it wasnt actually removed from the origanal game or rescources were diverted from the main games development to make it to be dlc. If it was made afterwards then that is absolutely fine.

 

[Don Savik]

"You don't know what I do! I GIVE you games, you should be grateful you little sh*ts" <--is what I read the article as.

I swear, EA is just as bad as Activision....sheesh.

 

[ablac]

-snip-

Proof's better explained in the description. The fact that you can take a few lines off the code and then be able to play as the character from the DLC means that it's already in the disc to begin with.

Now I don't like calling people Biodrones unless necessary, but you're really making it hard for me not to call you one. Taking the scripts of the producers on an interview over someone who actually checked the game files in the disc, is facepalm inducing to say the least. Of course they're not going to admit the DLC is in the disc, that would be extremely stupid, plus it's going to make them look worse to the community that already hates them.

OT: I had one extremely huge problem with her statement. Particularly this line.

Players rant?they know nothing about this DLC that's coming out except its name.

Yeah, players usually don't have any idea about the DLC, except when, you know, Bioware/EA was actually dumb enough to leak the frickin' DLC. I think she never got the news about that one.

Yeah then strawman it. "You are biodrone"
It wasn't on the disk. There is a char placeholder. There is no mission, there is no dialog. He has no voiceover. All there is a model. A place holder. How can you honestly say with a strait face "the content is on the disk!" when it clearly isn't finished. You have the balls to call me a Biodrone?

It shows how little of an argument you have. Dont even try to pretend it isn't the case. You dont even try to deny that the developers never fucking said the content wasn't finished when the game went gold. You just ignore it. And you try to argue that a Placeholder = finished contend? Get out and dont come back.

There is leftovers of a full lvl that was never finished on the original God of War?
Does that mean you got cut content?
No it means that there was the potential for finishing the lvl, but the developer didn't have time or money to finish it. Look it up. Learn a little. Then please excuse yourself and apoligize for doing a pointless attack on my person with so little back up.

Except I never really called you one did I? I said you were making it really hard, there's a difference in difficulty in calling someone and directly addressing them as such.

I said content was on the disk, you even quoted me. But where oh where my friend did I ever say that the content is finished? I argued that there is content, and you agreed with me.

DLC literally means Downloadable Content, the models that are supposed to be DOWNLOADED, meaning separated from the disc, are still in the disc, hell, it was even labeled for the DOWNLOADED character. Placeholder or not, the thing is, if you can actually put that character in your party in the game without downloading it as was demonstrated by the video, then that is still content from something that was supposed to be downloaded separately, meaning not on the disc. Technically, that means that there are DLC in the game disc. Bioware argued that there was no such thing in the game disc, that they were made SEPARATELY, by a separate team, and yet, you just conceded that there is in fact content from the DLC in the game disc.

Finally, offending someone in the internet is very amusing. You look like a butthurt fanboy from your post. I'm not taking it back, hell I'm going to state it directly now since its actually pretty obvious. YOU ARE A BIODRONE. Now, please don't let this paragraph ruin your stance, I like to see how far fanboys go in defending their beloved developer.

So your whole point is....

Because there is unfinished content on the disk it should be available?

That is pathetic.

Deal with the facts

"the content in "From Ashes" was developed by a seperate team (after the core game was finished)
And not the main game vent into certification"

Is the quote. please tell me how that goes against anything you discovered on the disk?

Deal with the fact that you only found a place holder. That is what it is. Unfinished content left in. You can find it in every game from Pokemon to God of War. Are you going to call me a Nintendrone as well for defending this practise?

No I think the only one with a zealous attitude appears to be you.

Is it just me, or did you just ignore my argument, the whole DLC definition thing that I posted and then just insisted that I was talking about unfinished content? Again, I'll repeat it, my argument is that Bioware was lying when they said that the DLC was an actual separate thing.

For the sake of my argument, since I'm guessing you ignored it, I'll repeat it for you. Bioware stated that they created DLC AFTER the main product, and then revised to after certification, they even said they had different teams for that. The fact that the DLC was NOT separate, that includes MODELS, TEXTURES, and you can even PUT THE FRICKIN PROTHEAN IN YOUR PARTY and everything else means that they did NOT develop DLC SEPARATELY from the main product.

"the content in "From Ashes" was developed by a seperate team (after the core game was finished)
And not the main game vent into certification"

Thing is, you wouldn't need placeholders if your proposed DLC are actually separated and created after the main product. If they stated that it was just unfinished/cut content, then that's fine as far as I'm concerned. But they stated that they created it separately from the main product, which is a lie, as was my argument.

sigh....

Do I have to link the damm picture? I am pretty sure I have to dont I?

No fuck it I am sure you have seen it multible times. It has been linked in every of these threads now.

Where we dont seem to see eye to eye is that you seem to believe that.

"the content in "From Ashes" was developed by a seperate team (after the core game was finished)
And not the main game vent into certification"

Means that the separate team needs to be in a separate box. The separate team is the preproduction team. Now you know how they put in those place holders thou. If you are going to argue that they cannot finish previously dropped material, then you might as well give up EVERY GAME that has dlc.

But if your point is "they had the idea for the prothean before it vent into certification" then yeah you are right. I dont see how that makes it bad, but yeah you are right. They did indeed have the idea for the prothean before the game went into preproduction.

Look if the entire content is on the disk then that means it was made with rescources diverted from the production of the main game or cut content. If it was done afterwards then it would not be already on the damn disk. It was either cut or made alongside. Not afterwards and that is not acceptable. That means that we receive a lesser game because content was made to be sold seperately but enjoyed rescources diverted from the main game. That is complete disrespect for consumers and if we allow it then we are stating that such behaviour is acceptable. They chose the Prothean because whther it truly is important or not to the story it seems important and thus will sell better. Its shameful and you should not support it because it is simply disregard for consumers.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Ok while I agree that having the Day 1 "DLC" on the game disc is a dick move, the DLC content itself is not. Esp. as I just saw another thread that explained how day 1 DLC development worked.

I have absolutely no problem with DLC, though the day one does not settle well with me. I see it as a difference in thought between producer and customer. The producer sees it as extra content they paid extra to make, so it's like a convenient and instantly available treat for us to buy. Customers see it as something they developed at the same time, and because of that it must be as important as the primary. If they are going to make DLC at the same time as the game, fine, but they should at least have the decency to wait a few months before releasing it so we don't feel as though we've been cheated out of something that was either developed alongside or was simply cut out of the main game. It's a matter of respect for your customer. If EA wants to screw us, they should at least be classy and make an effort to not make us aware we're being screwed.

The thing is the development of your Day 1 DLC usually begins when the main game enters the testing/Q&A stage, at which point most of the main development teams usually didn't have much to do before DLC came around. Now they can get started on that first round of DLC once all their labours on the main game are complete. And since in doesn't take nearly as long to develope DLC as it does the main game, that first, or Day 1 DLC is usually ready, tested and everything, around the same time that the main game is finished testing so why shouldn't they ship them out together? Now as I said, putting the DLC on the disc and just locking it off IS a dick move, but just having it is not. It's making efficient use of time and resources.

 

[Limecake]

Look can we please kill this analogy here because it really isnt a very good one to work with. Games are not movies they are games and come with very large differences. Point is it has been categorically proved now that the DLC was made to be initially in the game because, without downloading anything, you can change a small amount of code and unlock the character http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRRpGlmtws8 . (sorry dont know how to do things such as embed the video, not sure if thats the right term, please dont try to teach me here). Now that video could of been faked but because it has not as of yet been disproven to my knowledge i doubt that is the case. This means that rescources to make the game were used to make content not in the game but rather to be sold externally. Yes they can do that but it is an exploitive way to treat consumers and I dont like it. If I buy it then I encourage them to do it further and if I pirate i have no conviction so boycott it is. Itis a prothean teamate and those who have played the game know that is damn important to the story. It may not be central but it sure as hell is important or at least, involving a living prothean, is meant to seem so to garner more sales. It is not entitlement to disagree with this practice and such blatant disrespect or value for consumers is insulting. I would also like to add that dlc is fine so long as it wasnt actually removed from the origanal game or rescources were diverted from the main games development to make it to be dlc. If it was made afterwards then that is absolutely fine.

I agree the analogy was never a very good one but you have to see the connections here, Yes I know you can unlock the DLC on the disk which means that the DLC was originally developed to be in Mass Effect 3 and this is where I'm trying to make my point. Movies do this all the time they shoot scenes meant to be in the movie but for whatever reason they get cut and usually end up on a DvD (which you have to pay extra for!) these scenes are of course completely optional and really only add a little to the overall product.

I am saying that within reason it's fine to remove a side part of the game and charge it as DLC, I don't see the problem in that and it certainly doesn't justify me boycotting the game. Would I have liked the protheon to be included? of course! more content is never a bad thing and I've been a huge fan of the Mass Effect series from the very first one so believe me I know the lore.

it's all a matter of perspective, where you view the from ashes DLC as "something that is vital to the story that I must pay extra for" I see it as "something optional that I may choose to purchase if I feel I'd like to add to my Mass Effect Experience" DLC is optional if you don't want to pay for it then don't, if you don't want to buy mass effect than don't it's your choice.

Capitalism runs with the 'invisible hand' which would mean that if enough people are thoroughly upset by Mass Effect 3 then EA/Bioware would take notice because it wouldn't sell as many copies or it would get crap reviews.

But don't think that just because you paid for a couple of their games you're entitled to tell them how to run their multi-million dollar company.

 

[ablac]

No its like saying because you paid to see the last two movies they should leave in scenes important to the story rather than remove them to be sold later. Its a bad analogy to start with but thats the correct view of it. They removed it from the original game specifically to exploit the fan base because the day one dlc is important to the stroy. Thats damn justification to be pissed off with them.

not really, I highly doubt the DLC character is central to the story. It's more like going to a movie and then complaining because they deleted scenes from it and you don't want to wait till the DVD comes out to see the deleted scenes. Plus you already paid to see the movie so why do you have to buy a DVD just to see them?

I mean they shot them for the movie anyway!

Look can we please kill this analogy here because it really isnt a very good one to work with. Games are not movies they are games and come with very large differences. Point is it has been categorically proved now that the DLC was made to be initially in the game because, without downloading anything, you can change a small amount of code and unlock the character http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRRpGlmtws8 . (sorry dont know how to do things such as embed the video, not sure if thats the right term, please dont try to teach me here). Now that video could of been faked but because it has not as of yet been disproven to my knowledge i doubt that is the case. This means that rescources to make the game were used to make content not in the game but rather to be sold externally. Yes they can do that but it is an exploitive way to treat consumers and I dont like it. If I buy it then I encourage them to do it further and if I pirate i have no conviction so boycott it is. Itis a prothean teamate and those who have played the game know that is damn important to the story. It may not be central but it sure as hell is important or at least, involving a living prothean, is meant to seem so to garner more sales. It is not entitlement to disagree with this practice and such blatant disrespect or value for consumers is insulting. I would also like to add that dlc is fine so long as it wasnt actually removed from the origanal game or rescources were diverted from the main games development to make it to be dlc. If it was made afterwards then that is absolutely fine.

Game:
Dungeon Defender

Has model of of Barbarian in the opening game with the Text "coming soon"

Model clearly is in the data. Bararian is finished at a later data and sold as DLC.

Tell me again how this is exploitative?
Only difference is that Bioware has more exp and a bigger budget to pull that off in less time.

Was it finished when it was one the game. That model seems like a small, excusable thing. Please listen and realise the entire 'DLC' is on the disc not just a small character model. It is already finished and was done when the game went for certification. The character was leaked months before certification. While not verifiable the fact that it is finished on the disc before downloading the content means that it was already done before they claimed they began making it otherwise this wouldnt be possible. I cant speak for dungeon defender because ive never heard of it and i dont know if there was furora around it but these are different cases. One is finished after the games completion and sold as DLC while the other is finished before completition and cut to be sold later to exploit the customers. Planning DLC is fine. But diverting rescources to make it or cutting content to be sold later is not. Also I would like to note that when a game is in its final stages the art team has little to do because the rest of the team is busy debugging and the like ( I dont know what else but I know they have work to be done after the art team is done). Because of this it is fine to place a model in because rescources were not diverted as the rescources were not being used anyway.

 

[Gnoekeos]

I thought they had a perfectly reasonable explanation for why that dlc was dlc on the first day. Something about how the game had to be sent off for approval by somebody but that portion wasn't ready at the right time so they worked hard and got it finished before release but couldn't actually incorporate it into the game due to technical legal stuff.

 

[ablac]

Look can we please kill this analogy here because it really isnt a very good one to work with. Games are not movies they are games and come with very large differences. Point is it has been categorically proved now that the DLC was made to be initially in the game because, without downloading anything, you can change a small amount of code and unlock the character http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRRpGlmtws8 . (sorry dont know how to do things such as embed the video, not sure if thats the right term, please dont try to teach me here). Now that video could of been faked but because it has not as of yet been disproven to my knowledge i doubt that is the case. This means that rescources to make the game were used to make content not in the game but rather to be sold externally. Yes they can do that but it is an exploitive way to treat consumers and I dont like it. If I buy it then I encourage them to do it further and if I pirate i have no conviction so boycott it is. Itis a prothean teamate and those who have played the game know that is damn important to the story. It may not be central but it sure as hell is important or at least, involving a living prothean, is meant to seem so to garner more sales. It is not entitlement to disagree with this practice and such blatant disrespect or value for consumers is insulting. I would also like to add that dlc is fine so long as it wasnt actually removed from the origanal game or rescources were diverted from the main games development to make it to be dlc. If it was made afterwards then that is absolutely fine.

I agree the analogy was never a very good one but you have to see the connections here, Yes I know you can unlock the DLC on the disk which means that the DLC was originally developed to be in Mass Effect 3 and this is where I'm trying to make my point.

I am saying that within reason it's fine to remove a side part of the game and charge it as DLC, I don't see the problem in that and it certainly doesn't justify me boycotting the game. Would I have liked the protheon to be included? of course! more content is never a bad thing and I've been a huge fan of the Mass Effect series from the very first one so believe me I know the lore.

it's all a matter of perspective, where you view the from ashes DLC as "something that is vital to the story that I must pay extra for" I see it as "something optional that I may choose to purchase if I feel I'd like to add to my Mass Effect Experience" DLC is optional if you don't want to pay for it then don't, if you don't want to buy mass effect than don't it's your choice.

Capitalism runs with the 'invisible hand' which would mean that if enough people are thoroughly upset by Mass Effect 3 then EA/Bioware would take notice because it wouldn't sell as many copies or it would get crap reviews.

But don't think that just because you paid for a couple of their games you're entitled to tell them how to run their multi-million dollar company.

The consumers collectively paid for everything. So yes we should have a say in what we deem acceptable. We vote by purchase and if we are offended by a practice enough to refuse to buy then we have the right to do so. That is what a boycott is it is saying 'look we dont like what you are doing and so we will not purchase any of the game until we are satisfied'. Then it is up to the publisher/dev to decide what to do next. We want to play the game but wont accept this kind of treatment. Therefore we have said that if they change it we will buy. That is active capitalism and a fair deal. We could just not buy it sure but then we hanvent been fair.They might not see why and we wouldnt get to play. There is a good, fixable reason we are not buying so we have given them the option to change.If they wont take up up on our ultimatum then they pay the price in lost sales. Cutting content is not acceptable because it means those who do not pay the extraordinary price for an extra teamate, maybe a new mision or two, suffer from a lesser game twofold. The first is that they do not have the content cut. The second however is where the real justification comes in. Rescources for the main game were used to make this. It was not made afterwards. This means that the game is less than its potential in terms of content because of this seperate content. We are essentially being punished for not buying it because the game is not what it could have been without it. That is not acceptable and to buy the game supports a terribly exploitative practice. You might see this as ok. But if we allow this then it will get worse and worse. I dont want to see that. I want to nip this practice in the bud before it get bigger. It is healthy for an industry to have the consumers tell the suppliers what is right and what is wrong and sometimes we need to be a bit more vocal than an invisible hand can be. Also the fact that EA/Bioware lied to us, I mean blatantly lied, about when the content was made is unacceptable. They intended to sell it seperately and cut it to do so and they should be honest about that because it is the truth. Either that or dont do it.

 

[Limecake]

The consumers collectively paid for everything. So yes we should have a say in what we deem acceptable. We vote by purchase and if we are offended by a practice enough to refuse to buy then we have the right to do so. That is what a boycott is it is saying 'look we dont like what you are doing and so we will not purchase any of the game until we are satisfied'. Then it is up to the publisher/dev to decide what to do next.

you do in a way, when you don't buy the product you tell EA/Bioware "I didn't buy it because I don't like/want it" that's fine! a perfectly viable reason to not buy something. But boycotting a game because you aren't happy with the way they handled developement or because tali's face is the wrong way to go about it.

This is the exact same issue that came up with Star wars TOR, everyone boycott's the game for a different reason. People are upset about DLC, The Ending, Tali's Face, multiplayer, gay relationships, being able to select 'story mode' and any number of other complaints that any random fan might have.

We want to play the game but wont accept this kind of treatment. Therefore we have said that if they change it we will buy. That is active capitalism and a fair deal. We could just not buy it sure but then we hanvent been fair.They might not see why and we wouldnt get to play. There is a good, fixable reason we are not buying so we have given them the option to change.

Fix what? surely you've heard at least 5 different complaints about mass effect 3, what do you propose bioware fixes first? Not to mention the very small amount of sales they would gain from 'fixing' ME3 wouldn't even begin to balance out the developement costs.

Rescources for the main game were used to make this. It was not made afterwards. This means that the game is less than its potential in terms of content because of this seperate content. We are essentially being punished for not buying it because the game is not what it could have been without it. That is not acceptable and to buy the game supports a terribly exploitative practice.

I understand the idea I really do! but it's even more dangerous to blame games for content that is missed. Skyrim is a massive game, with hundreds of hours of content is cost me around $60 to buy. does this mean I'm justified in assuming all games with less content should cost less? what if they cut a couple quests last minute, would you boycott skyrim? surely more resources were put into Duke Nukem Forever than into Modern Warfare 3, does this mean duke nukem should have cost twice as much?

I didn't hand over $60 for my copy of ME3 expecting to roll around the universe with the protheon. I gladly handed over the money for all the reasons I love the mass effect series not because I was expecting to squeeze another couple hours out of it.

You might see this as ok. But if we allow this then it will get worse and worse. I dont want to see that. I want to nip this practice in the bud before it get bigger. It is healthy for an industry to have the consumers tell the suppliers what is right and what is wrong and sometimes we need to be a bit more vocal than an invisible hand can be.

Please don't misunderstand me, I don't blame you for trying to do better for the gaming community I just don't think this is going to be the straw that breaks the back. But it's just like I said before, you're voice is getting drown out by the other couple hundred people all demanding something else from bioware not to mention the millions of people who just chose not to buy mass effect 3. If you really really [b/] wanted to get show EA or Bioware you don't support the DLC then buying the game but not buying the DLC would actually work better since EA would see it as "well these people like our game but aren't interested in the DLC"

Also the fact that EA/Bioware lied to us, I mean blatantly lied, about when the content was made is unacceptable. They intended to sell it seperately and cut it to do so and they should be honest about that because it is the truth. Either that or dont do it.

I agree that EA/Bioware have egg on their face over this but how well do you think this would have gone over really? There is already unimaginable amounts of hate being slung at Bioware, from Writers to DA:2 or TOR bioware just can't catch a break lately.

If Bioware had released a statement saying "we ended up cutting the From Ashes quest because we needed DLC to sell and something special for the collector's edition" do you honestly believe the internet would be anywhere near as civil as they are about the situation now? Honesty is great but when given the choice lying is almost always the better idea.

it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

If you don't want the game then don't buy it but Bioware would be foolish to try and appease it's fans, all fans want different things out of their games Bioware needs to use it's own judgement instead of listening to fans (many of which don't know what they are talking about)

I'd like to point out I'm not mad or angry with you in any way, I just thought I'd share my opinion on the topic.

 

[Watcheroftrends]

You have no reasonable idea of what it takes to release a video game..

But I'm sure you do...

When they send data to be certified (which they did in this case) they can only certify content on the disc, meaning only finished content is certified. They claimed that they made this DLC when that was hapenning. Finding out the files were on the disc prove that this is an outright lie and that it was finished during the production of the rest of the game.

Whether or not I "know" what it takes to release a video game is irrelevant. If your reply were to hold any weight in that respect, then the only people posting here should be video game developers and marketers. Also, I spent the majority of the post you replied to explaining a probable reason for Bioware's decision based on a rough idea of what the development process may be like. If you're more knowledgable than me on the topic, you'd be able to discern from what I typed whether or not I "know" anything I typed (which, btw was entirely hypothetical so I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong), but since you made a sarcastic remark without refuting a specific detail of what I said, I'm going to assume you're just as ignorant as me on the topic.

I also qualified my statement by requiring you think Bioware "gouged" you with the DLC, this being relient on my explanation of the release process. Given what I typed, I'm not in error, and I think I remained resaonable in context.

If what you say about the files already being on the disk is true, then I would fully stand behind the people angry at Bioware. In contrast, though, I've read a few things on the web stating that only part of the DLC was on the disk, but that it was still required to have a seperate team of individuals finish it after the core product was completed and went into production.

The hingepoint of everyone's hatred should come down to whether or not they literally just pulled it from the completed product and sold it seperately for more money. At this point though, it's likely impossible to prove what actually happened unless you worked on the project yourself.

 

[Watcheroftrends]

At worst, Bioware had the DLC finished with the core product but decided to sell it seperately for more money.

At best, they finished it after the core game went into production and thus had it as a seperate product that was ready by the release date of the core game.

Even if the first option were the case, I think it would still be within their rights to have done that. Biowared could have charged any price they wanted for the game and you'd have to pay it to play it. I mean, if we consider that some games that retail for $60 have half the content of ME3, then Bioware could have just as well sold the game in 2 parts at $60 a piece. They could have had the entire project finished and simply only release half of it and hold on to the other half for a later date. Now that would be a real screw over because you'd NEED to buy the second half to get to finish the narrative.

 

[ablac]

The consumers collectively paid for everything. So yes we should have a say in what we deem acceptable. We vote by purchase and if we are offended by a practice enough to refuse to buy then we have the right to do so. That is what a boycott is it is saying 'look we dont like what you are doing and so we will not purchase any of the game until we are satisfied'. Then it is up to the publisher/dev to decide what to do next.

you do in a way, when you don't buy the product you tell EA/Bioware "I didn't buy it because I don't like/want it" that's fine! a perfectly viable reason to not buy something. But boycotting a game because you aren't happy with the way they handled developement or because tali's face is the wrong way to go about it.

This is the exact same issue that came up with Star wars TOR, everyone boycott's the game for a different reason. People are upset about DLC, The Ending, Tali's Face, multiplayer, gay relationships, being able to select 'story mode' and any number of other complaints that any random fan might have.

We want to play the game but wont accept this kind of treatment. Therefore we have said that if they change it we will buy. That is active capitalism and a fair deal. We could just not buy it sure but then we hanvent been fair.They might not see why and we wouldnt get to play. There is a good, fixable reason we are not buying so we have given them the option to change.

Fix what? surely you've heard at least 5 different complaints about mass effect 3, what do you propose bioware fixes first? Not to mention the very small amount of sales they would gain from 'fixing' ME3 wouldn't even begin to balance out the developement costs.

Rescources for the main game were used to make this. It was not made afterwards. This means that the game is less than its potential in terms of content because of this seperate content. We are essentially being punished for not buying it because the game is not what it could have been without it. That is not acceptable and to buy the game supports a terribly exploitative practice.

I understand the idea I really do! but it's even more dangerous to blame games for content that is missed. Skyrim is a massive game, with hundreds of hours of content is cost me around $60 to buy. does this mean I'm justified in assuming all games with less content should cost less? what if they cut a couple quests last minute, would you boycott skyrim? surely more resources were put into Duke Nukem Forever than into Modern Warfare 3, does this mean duke nukem should have cost twice as much?

I didn't hand over $60 for my copy of ME3 expecting to roll around the universe with the protheon. I gladly handed over the money for all the reasons I love the mass effect series not because I was expecting to squeeze another couple hours out of it.

You might see this as ok. But if we allow this then it will get worse and worse. I dont want to see that. I want to nip this practice in the bud before it get bigger. It is healthy for an industry to have the consumers tell the suppliers what is right and what is wrong and sometimes we need to be a bit more vocal than an invisible hand can be.

Please don't misunderstand me, I don't blame you for trying to do better for the gaming community I just don't think this is going to be the straw that breaks the back. But it's just like I said before, you're voice is getting drown out by the other couple hundred people all demanding something else from bioware not to mention the millions of people who just chose not to buy mass effect 3. If you really really [b/] wanted to get show EA or Bioware you don't support the DLC then buying the game but not buying the DLC would actually work better since EA would see it as "well these people like our game but aren't interested in the DLC"

Also the fact that EA/Bioware lied to us, I mean blatantly lied, about when the content was made is unacceptable. They intended to sell it seperately and cut it to do so and they should be honest about that because it is the truth. Either that or dont do it.

I agree that EA/Bioware have egg on their face over this but how well do you think this would have gone over really? There is already unimaginable amounts of hate being slung at Bioware, from Writers to DA:2 or TOR bioware just can't catch a break lately.

If Bioware had released a statement saying "we ended up cutting the From Ashes quest because we needed DLC to sell and something special for the collector's edition" do you honestly believe the internet would be anywhere near as civil as they are about the situation now? Honesty is great but when given the choice lying is almost always the better idea.

it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

If you don't want the game then don't buy it but Bioware would be foolish to try and appease it's fans, all fans want different things out of their games Bioware needs to use it's own judgement instead of listening to fans (many of which don't know what they are talking about)

I'd like to point out I'm not mad or angry with you in any way, I just thought I'd share my opinion on the topic.

Cheers for being civil, it can be a rare thing especially in subjects as volatile as this. My grievance and the grievance of this boycott is the DLC. Not the other 'issues' people have with the game. They do not come into the boycott so that the boycott doesnt become a vessel for every complaint with the game. I feel that this isnt acceptable and many agree. What we are saying through a boycott is 'we really do want to play this game and we will buy it if you do x. If you dont then we will not because we feel either the game isnt worth playing or that the problem needs to be fixed and you (the supplier) must learn you will lose our sales if you continue this'. Longwinded I know but that is the message of a boycott. The idea is to scare the supplier into surrendering out of fear of lost sales. While I can see the logic If we were to simply not buy the DLC then they would still get away with it. We want this problem sorted and we dont want to punish EA but simply show them what they should do to earn back our purchase. Im not trying to talk down to you if it seems that way. Essentially a mass loss of sales entirely is more damaging and therefore more likely for us to get what we want. That and not buying the DLC may simply lead to less content being made because the message would simply be that you wasted money and wouldnt have made any more sales by including it in the main game therefore dont bother with this kind of content in the future. I love the games as well and I dont want this to be the end of the mass effect games but we simply dont want to take this lying down because we feel this is unnaceptable and if we dont take action it will only get worse. We dont think the camels back will break overnight but we feel it will creep more and more into wider practice and to a greater degree. My point about honesty stands that if they arent willing to be truthful about it then they shouldnt do it because they know it is poor treatment of their consumers. I dont like how they have specifically chosen to take something which may or may not be important to the story or lore but appears so because it will generate more sales. $60 is a standard price but I aqm talking about rescources for this specific game. What goes into skyrim is unimportant. The game is less because content was diverted to exploit us for more money. Yes they can do that but I dont like it. It means I get a lesser game at the checkout and am worse of if I want what was origanally intended. Many fans are entitled dicks certainly but a lot arent and our beef is more with EA who are probably the ones responsible for this rather than Bioware. Content quality is not our issue and dissapointing endings are a different bag of worms. This boycott is about this dlc nothing else.