BioWare cuts content from Mass Effect 3 and offers it as DLC for 1/3 of the game's full price

DSOGaming writes: "The big question now is whether we should justify BioWare and EA for cutting content, further polishing it, and releasing it for 1/3 of the game’s full price. According to Gamble, this will be the biggest DLC ever with new enemies, but the point is that there were already hints for it in the Mass Effect 3 disc, suggesting that this mission was meant to be featured in the ME3 game. It’s sad that we’ve come to this point, where developers and publishers are cutting content in order to milk their games. Naturally, some might defend BioWare for this and say that the content was cut to hit their deadline. In fact, this content was never promised and if the fans hadn’t dug up ME3′s disc, we wouldn’t even be aware of it. But this is an ethical dilemma here as BioWare is exploiting something that was initially featured in the game (and removed for whatever reason)."

[matgrowcott]

So now not only should developers not work on additional content before the game is shipped, but they shouldn't plan it either? Not only are they not allowed to fully code DLC, but they're not even allowed to reference it - especially if it had meant to be in the game early on and, for whatever reason, didn't make the cut?

People are unrealistic about DLC and about the process it goes through in creation. This pack is coming out, what, 8 months after release? And it STILL should have been on the disk?!

[Godmars290]

ME3 should be a better game than it is if only for side-quest management which was done better in the prior game.

DLC as a concept has only been around this gen and generally hasn't been all that well received. Cases like this which rehash rather than expand a game story is not a positive, supportive example.

[Kalowest]

"ME3 should be a better game than it is "
Damn right, ME3 sucked.

[da_2pacalypse]

Whether or not you liked ME3 or not, you would be absolutely oblivious to not admit that the Omega DLC should have been part of the game. Aria basically gives you this mission when you see her on the Citidel. This mission should have been included in the main game, thus the main game should have been delayed.

[nukeitall]

Technically DLC is just an expansion of "expansions" of full games on PC. I see nothing wrong with DLC, and welcome this extra content for ME3.

I will just wait for the price to drop, or it arrives in a compilation.

[caseh]

@Godmars290

Nah DLC has been around for as long as I can remember, at least for PC gamers.

They were called 'Expansion Packs' back then. :) The one I always remember is Battlefield 1942, few months later 'Road to Rome' was released as an expansion which added maps etc. Had quite an impact on clans etc as all members would need the expansion to play competitively.

You will probably find that DLC has been more noticeable as all consoles this gen were internet ready straight from the box. The internet is the reason DLC is so common, as is day 1 patching. Perfect way to deliver content to the masses.

[colonel179]

You are very wrong caseh. Expansion packs used to EXPAND the game, hence the name. They offered more content for the game. In the case of the DLC is cut content offered at a later time for a price.

Expansions for games like Elder Scrolls were intended to make the game bigger. Include more missions, etc. DLC is only intended to milk the gamer. They cut content, characters, or story to sell them later.

DLC sucks so bad, I can imagine it being the heaviest reason of the destruction of the gaming industry. Because unlike free to play games, they are bound to a more expensive consoles and games prices.

[caseh]

@Colonel179

Adding new characters, maps or adding new quests for example basically equates to the same thing. In each case, regardless if you are referring to it as an expansion or DLC it increases the level of content the game has available to the end user.

An expansion pack simply gave you a sizeable chunk of content, you got an expansion of the game in a single shot. DLC tends to give it out in smaller chunks. A pack for music, a pack for characters, a pack for maps, a pack for new side-quests etc etc.

And I stand by the fact that companies can do this and it will be accepted by a percentage of gamers due to the simple fact that:

A: Their console is connected to the internet
B: They can access the store, see something they like that they deem to be set at an acceptible price and purchase without any fuss.

If people had to go to the likes of Gamestop to purchase their DLC, it wouldn't be nowhere near as popular. So I digress and disagree all you like, the 'always on' internet connection your console has is the sole reason DLC is so widely used/abused by devs.

@Godmars290
Yeah exactly, expansion packs do it all in one shot. DLC gives it in chunks, if you added all the DLC made available in Fallout3 for example it would extend the game a huge amount as you stated:

"PC expansion packs added new campaigns often nearly the length of the original game."

DLC and expansion packs are essentially the same thing...

[Godmars290]

PC expansion packs added new campaigns often nearly the length of the original game.

DLC if its not about a single item its a single scenario. Something like Lair of the Shadow Broker was what? 2-3 hours?

[NonApplicable]

@Godmars

The quality of the game is irrelevant to this discussion. If the team were working on a piece of content before the game shipped but didn't include it because it wasn't ready, they can't release it? Come the **** on.

"DLC generally hasn't been all that well received".

I call BS. This is flat out false.

[BattleAxe]

"It’s sad that we’ve come to this point, where developers and publishers are cutting content in order to milk their games."

Its not "developers and publishers", its just EA doing this kind of crap. I'm pretty much done with EA, there is no innovation in any of their sports games, Battlefield is pretty good, but they never release enough content for the game when it releases on day one, Medal of Honor is an absolute wreck of a series now since they've gone to a modern warfare theme, there always problems with serious lag in their online servers, Crysis is a series that has never lived up to the hype much beyond the graphics, they say "me too" and decide to create Dante's Inferno so they could have their own God of War, they say "me too" and create and MMA game so they could have the same game as THQ, they say "me too" and create Origin so they can be like Steam, and now they're trimming content from BF3 DLC and from ME3.

EA please....

[RedSky]

I don't understand why people don't realise they're getting screwed. It used to be that developers put their all into the full game without any real thought of after game content.

Then, if we were lucky and the game did well on release, they would begin work on an expansion. The expansion would ship for around half the game's price and contain roughly half the content of the full game on average. The expansion would have to feel almost like a full release, and new storyline & features would be an expectation because of this.

Instead, with DLC, the content is deliberately piecemeal. It costs perhaps up to a third of the original game's cost but usually contains closer to 10% of the content. Developers can and do begin work on them before shipping on the insistence of publishers like EA and Activision, because it is usually merely an addition, rather than a new separate experience.

Instead, any new gameplay additions or significant features are then pushed onto sequels whereas otherwise we would have seen them in expansions. There is a reason for example, there has been a common complaint of developers reusing the same engine. The standard used to almost be etched in stone that sequels included significant visual improvements. Part of this is because there has not been a new round of consoles released, but part of it a calculated cynicism on the part of the distributor.

Tl; dr version - you're getting less for more money.

[matgrowcott]

@Godmars

Your comment confuses the hell out of me. Mass Effect 3 should have been a better game and this shouldn't be DLC. By your own admission though, you wouldn't have enjoyed it if it had been in the original game. So by cutting it and offering it as a paid item - which you won't buy and play - Bioware have done you a favour, surely?

So do you agree or disagree with my original post?

@Colonel179

For every fantastic expansion pack, there was a bunch that was lazy and poorly received. Don't misremember it as if it was all fantastic. For every Opposing Force, there was a Creature Isle or Sims clothes pack.

And you know what, I still wouldn't begrudge anybody interested in buying those latter two, because they wanted a way of expanding their game. Same with DLC. If you hate it - fine. But people love being able to instantly extend their playtime. There was a time you'd have to wait for a sequel. Now you can wait a couple of months.

@RedSky

DLC is just a part of today's gaming world. It's an excellent way of enticing users into not feeding the pre-owned market and a better way of the developer getting money from people who DID buy pre-owned. It's a way for developers to increase the amount of money coming in on a game that perhaps didn't sell well (or that they made only a small portion back on) and it's a good way to extend an experience for people who want it to be extended.

I'm sorry, but only somebody really, really self-entitled would say that any of that was bad for the industry and bad for consumers.

If it wasn't for DLC, it's probably safe to presume this piece of content for Mass Effect 3 would never have seen the light of day. Now they can fix, extend and polish it after release. Are you saying that despite the extra work, hosting fees/licencing fees/rating fees and extension, the developers don't deserve your money if you want to play the pack?

Again, only somebody really, really self-entitled would think they deserve something that cost that much money for nothing. Someone self-entitled or ignorant as to how much this stuff can actually cost.

[RedSky]

@matgrowcott

1. You're justifying countering pre-owned games with DLC? That's a stretch.

2. I have no doubt it brings in more money. That's why I'm saying we get less for what we paid for than we used to.

3. Fixing is something done in patches. Unless you think we should be paying for this? Polishing is something you do before release. Gaming companies used to do a lot more extending in expansions, now they release an unnecessary sequel instead for full price.

4. Your last bit is straw man. Where did I say it should be free? You seem to have missed the part where I mentioned expansion packs. You know, what my whole post was about?

5. Your veiled ad hominem is lame.

[Shepherd 214]

Umm, nope, dlc has been around since the Original Xbox Live days. I remember downloading a space station where you could dock and buy new in game items in KotOR 1. I also remember Halo 2 being very supportive with it's online by offering well priced map packs on a consistent basis. Star Wars Battlefront 2 also had additional heroes and maps to download for good prices as well.

I'm not sure how well dlc faired on the PS2s horrible online system, but it was fair and cheap on Xbox Live in the old days. Publishers have only taken advantage of that nowadays.

Additionally, I feel the omega dlc is fine. There's nothing wrong with a developer putting a sentence in the full game that could lead somewhere in the future or not if plans fall through. It's been 8 months and it's clear they have put alot of work into it, I doubt even 20% of it was actually "cut" and there's mal-intent involved. Whiners are just trying very hard to find problems with a good game that had problems with side quests and an ending they didn't like.

[Oh_Yeah]

Guess what guys!!! DLC is totally optional. Whether it was made before or after the game WHO CARES, especially if its a good game thats 15+ hours to begin with...and it has a decent multiplayer? shut up already

[cleft5]

It's funny because these same people are talking about how excited they are for all the new Borderlands 2 dlc. Also, isn't it funny how that $10 preorder character was suppose to come out 2 months after the game was released. Then it was moved up to 1 month after release and finally it came out in under 3 weeks. Yet no one is complaining about that dlc.

People are so full of shit bro. Just ignore them and enjoy the new ME3 content, I know I will.

[PooEgg]

Personally I didn't buy Borderlands 2, because I was disappointed with what you just pointed out. I figure I will pick it up later when I find it on sale somewhere instead. Buy doing that I can still get the game plus the DLC for a fair price. But no matter which publisher/developer is doing this, the current DLC practice is unfair to gamers.

[shenpo_shin]

right with you clef..its crazy i mean y look borderlands 2 the game is out a month and they unleash dlc after dlc but there ppl are not complaining but for ME3 wich its first first story dlc came after 5months while getting free mp dlc meantime ppl are crying and raging all over.

enjoy the fcking dlc,every TRUE ME fans have been waiting for omega and now we finally get it..screw the haters kkthxbb

[vickers500]

@cleft5

And it's clear that they really weren't finished with the Mechromancer character, as there are still some bugs with that class. The bugs aren't completely game breaking, but some skills in that class are a bit bugged, so it's clear that the DLC was a little bit rushed and was pushed forward so they could have some dlc out early on.

It couldn't have been on the disc at launch. Not to mention, when games go gold (finished) they aren't immediately released, it takes like 2 or 3 weeks I believe for them to manufacture a lot of copies, and at that point they, in all likelihood, weren't done with the mechromancer at that point, so there would be no possible way for them to put it on the disc because they have a release date to keep and aren't (and shouldn't) going to delay a game just to add a bit more content to it, content that is extra.

Plus, you got the Mechromancer free if you pre-ordered the game, which any Borderlands fan would have already done, and if you didn't pre-order it and are upset about the Mechromancer DLC, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

But when it comes to the new pirate dlc that's supposed to release next week, I am kind of wary about that. I remember Gearbox saying that their DLCs would close to the size of General Knoxx, which, if true for the pirate dlc, means they probably started it during development of the actual game. But if it ends up just being an hour or two, then it's probably the same case as the mechromancer.

Either way I'm going to buy it. I haven't had this much fun in a game since Borderlands 1. Borderlands 2 my favorite game of this generation, and I'd be kicking myself right now waiting for a GoTY edition. Gearbox deserves every penny they get from me for the best game I've played (this generation).

[Megaton]

The Mechromancer wasn't cut content, nor was it finished when the game launched, and is still currently bugged. The game came with 4 characters, same as Borderlands. If it came with 3, you might have a valid point.

[Mutant-Spud]

Plus the Mechromancer is f-ing annoying in co-op, you get two or three of those droids blasting away and you can't hear anything else, the screen fills up with her special effects and it's impossible to follow the action.

[Irishguy95]

It's something people don't seem to care about, I was looking forward to that mission in ME3 and it never came up/ THen I see it here yesterday on N4g as Dlc. Yay! Nice one EA

[Mutant-Spud]

Aria only alludes to the Omega crisis, that side mission is all about getting the mercenaries to fight on the right side, I think it's a perfect excuse to hold back content, there's a whole game in that story arc if they wanted to really flesh it out.

[Bobby Kotex]

People like you is why paid DLC exists in the first place.

[SilentNegotiator]

"This pack is coming out, what, 8 months after release? And it STILL should have been on the disk?!"

The DLC was half-on disc for 8 months and you think that's an argument in its defense?

[sjaakiejj]

There's a difference between references to the expansion and the expansion being half on the disc. The first is the result of planning, the second is the result of unfinished content - both could easily be used as defense.

[geddesmond]

I have to disagree. DLC started out as a way of expanding on a games universe for the fans enjoyment and for companies to make a little extra money off the resources they invested into for making a game. Now DLC is a milking scam used by publishers that feeds into that need a gamer has for achievement.

While I see nothing wrong with this ME3 DLC because this is exactly how DLC should be(A huge expansion pack that caters to the fans released 8 months after the game launched)Most DLC in general takes the piss. Planning DLC during retail disk development should be abolished. Developers should focus all their talent into making a great retail game and start DLC ideas after disks go gold.

I notice more and more games releasing with holes in the game just so DLC can fill them and its utter BS.

[matgrowcott]

But that's presuming that time and effort would be put into those holes if it wasn't for DLC. While I agree there's nothing worse than a developer putting a lead in a game and then making you purchase the full thing (Dragon Age?!), the reason they do that is to make you buy. It's terrible - unless the DLC comes out 8 months later, of course - but it's because the DLC is already planned, not because they've removed it from the game.

Without the extra income and incentive created from DLC, it's fair to say most examples you can give would be the worse for it.

[SonyPS360]

Lol I agree. It's only been announced and it's 8 months after release, and people still think it should have been on the disk?

Is there no end to this whining?

[Godmars290]

Of course I disagree with your original post. A lot of people disagree with your original post.

I can't explain the fallacy in logic to you that in ME3's planning choices were made to exploit parts of the game. Editing is a tricky thing. The Jabba scene in New Hope was cut because it repeated the Greedo bar scene. It was redundant but later added to later releases of the move with CG effects - where anyone can see its redundant. Pointless.

The day-one Prothean DLC while bland was not pointless. Contributed to ME3 overall story arc. Falling From the Sky was an event in ME1 which added nothing overall just like ME2's Lair of the Shadow Broker despite that it not only revisited a character from ME1.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that editing is a tricky business. That as Bioware did it throughout the ME series, Dragon Age as well, that their judgement became skewed more towards making money than making a game much less telling a story.

[sjaakiejj]

"there were already hints for it in the Mass Effect 3 disc, suggesting that this mission was meant to be featured in the ME3 game"

No, that's called planning.

[Christopher]

It's possible that this was planned to be cut from the original and sold as DLC, or it could have just be planned that this DLC would include Omega and Aria and they put her into the game and some holder file elements on the disc while they still worked on making the content.

I don't really get the complaints here, though, since the whole part of the DLC is not on the disc and it's obvious BioWare worked on various DLCs after the game was released, including the expanded ending (which pushed this DLC back, btw).

[Kalowest]

DLC should start being made after a game is released.

[Christopher]

DLC should be planned before a game is released, though. So, no, it technically has to start when you're making the game.

It's like a TV show. You don't just write an enclosed Season One in one sitting and then try and wedge in a Season Two based on it. You plan for the story over the long run. Video Game DLC has to be handled in the same way. Well, it doesn't have to be handled that way, they could do a Capcom and just sell new costumes.

[Kalowest]

Actually sometimes writes don't start writing the next season of a show till the current season is over(It all depends on the writers and story telling styles).

[Christopher]

Yes, but they plan for openings in it during Season One. They start planning for Season Two. Sure, they may go one way or another in Season Two depending on how the first one does, but they plan for a Season Two.

And, most TV show dramas have an outline they follow from one season to another. It's primarily the sitcoms that don't plan from one season to another. They really don't have to, though, they're not story driven shows.

[john2]

The sad thing here is (apart from the fact that it was obviously cut from the main game) that this DLC feels like a filler episode of a TV show and not like one that is centered on the main story. DLC can be way better. DLC can further progress a game's story (in the same principle that expansions did for older games). For example, a wonderful DLC would be one centered around the illusive Man (with the player taking control of him), how he got indocrinated and how he managed to enter the Crucible. DLC can actually be good and given ME3's world, there is a huge potential for amazing DLCs. Exploiting DLCs and milking a franchise is a completely different story though.

As for writers planning for other seasons, my opinion is that they shouldn't. Unfortunately, we are now seeing such thing even on movies. Take for example the latest Bourne movie. It feels like a filler movie and is seriously not worth watching on the cinema. The same also happened with 'Eragorn' and 'The Golden Compass'. Both of them were planned as trilogies but didn't sell well. In the end, what we actually got was underwhelming movies that couldn't stand on their own feet.

[Christopher]

Umm... Eragorn and The Golden Compass were based on pre-existing novels that already had multiple books in the same series.

I disagree that many shows shouldn't be planned out. I do agree that many movies that shouldn't be planned out are being planned out. But, it's sometimes good, especially if it's planned around pre-existing stories (The Avengers is a good example of this, IMHO).

***The sad thing here is (apart from the fact that it was obviously cut from the main game) that this DLC feels like a filler episode of a TV show and not like one that is centered on the main story. ***

As the ending of the trilogy, I don't think any DLC added after the fact would really do anything but feel as filler since they are adamant that A) It's the end of Shepard and B) They've shown us the ending they want us to see already and won't show any more.

ME3 was a great game, up until management decided to end it the way they did and refuses to expand upon it. My theory is that this was done so that when they make new games on other characters in the series/world, they won't have to write towards an ending that is completely known and will have artistic license on how to deal with those characters and the storyline. Purely to sell more future games. That's what I disagree with more than just filler DLC.

[vortis]

DLC actually shouldn't be planned at ALL before a game is released.

A perfect example is Saints Row: The Third...yeah it had a ton of DLC but the game was crap. It's running on the same tech as Saints Row 2 but doesn't even have half the amount of content, yet it has tons and tons and tons of DLC.

I was a fool for buying as much Saints Row 3 DLC as I did, thinking it would extend the fun factors and replayability but I was wrong. Doesn't matter how the DLC was planned it was obvious it was a cash grab and fools like myself sadly fell for it thinking that getting the DLC would extend the life of the game when all it did was add a few extra minutes of play-time here and there.

Saints Row 2 doesn't have any DLC (or none that I know of) and I've logged twice as much time on it than Saints Row 3, plus it still has missions, content and unlockables I still haven't accessed yet.

In short, devs should work on expanding the core game first and plan any DLC after the core game ships. I now no longer buy games day-one if there's even a hint at DLC because it means you're getting a gimped experience as a day-one buyer.

[FiachDubh]

@cgoodno

Writing? Maybe.
Filming? No.

[matgrowcott]

@John2

"The sad thing here is (apart from the fact that it was obviously cut from the main game) that this DLC feels like a filler episode of a TV show and not like one that is centered on the main story."

And for that reason it should have been free and completed for release 8 months earlier?

Either it was cut and shouldn't have been or it is being released and doesn't feel like it fits, you can't have it both ways.

[MasterD919]

I agree that DLC shouldn't even be in the conception stage until a game is out and released. Absolutely. Why should I be hearing about future content on the release day? That is exactly what happened with ME3.

I really think that developers have just gone too far and are far too dependent on DLC these days. It's going down a dark road. I find the pricing alone for most DLC to be ridiculous. That's why they get floods of people buying the content when it's on sale. There is a standard pricing scheme here that some games just can't provide quality content for...it's unfair to the average gamer/consumer. I'm a bit surprised that it isn't regulated a bit more frankly. This is probably the one and only area of the gaming industry that NEEDS to be regulated and have some oversight.

At least throw out occasional FREE DLC....sweeten the deal a bit. Bioware has done that at least.

[Kalowest]

"At least throw out occasional FREE DLC....sweeten the deal a bit."
The only developer that comes to mind is CD Projekt RED(Damn I love them).
@cgoodno I forget about the MP(and it's turned free DLC), that tells you how much i cared for it, lol.

[Christopher]

All of the ME3 multiplayer DLC has been free, just FYI. As well as the extended ending DLC.

So, this will be the first paid DLC for ME3, all of it so far has been free.

I really think people are bringing too much from other companies that mishandle DLC into this conversation on ME3 DLC. We need to start treating DLC handling on a per-game/company basis, not as overall remarks on the industry.

[MasterD919]

Well Bioware is a bit of a hard case to crack...It's questionable if they would have charged for the multiplayer DLC if the campaign ending didn't cause such a ruckus. I feel like they scrapped plans for that and decided to go with the free model after that.

And the first paid campaign DLC was Javik's DLC...You probably got that for free like I did with the CE of ME3, but most people didn't buy that and had to pay $10 for Javik and his mission.

Bioware mind as well be included in the conversation in general for DLC because E.A. is probably behind their DLC model and Bioware did release day 1 PAID DLC. I can sympathize with them more than the average company because ME2 had wonderful DLC and was worth every penny, but in general I stand by my point that too much DLC planned ahead of time or separated from the original content is a problem.

[Megaton]

Leviathan was paid DLC. Also with traces of cut content. They had admitted to cutting the Reaper's origin information from the game in Geoff Keighley's thing about ME3, which is what Leviathan provided.

Fact is that this whole thing about Omega was revealed before the game even launched because it appeared in the leaked script. I think people are well within their right to be angry about the content not only being cut and sold as DLC, but for a higher price to boot.

[PooEgg]

This is such a hard subject. I think most of us can agree that when it is priced fairly and extends the game DLC can be a very welcome addition to a game. The problem is that more and more often gamers are being short changed on the main game, because developers/publishers are more focused on gamers wallets then they are on creating a good gaming experience.

It is a sad trend, but the reality is that it probably continue to get worse not better, because gamers WILL buy this DLC and EA/BioWare will take this as a message that gamers are suckers, and they will look for more ways to exploit the little goldmine that is DLC. It is what it is.

[NovaSethyr]

Definitely, and EA is one of those hunting for more money. At least with games like Borderlands they planned on extending the game instead of cutting up the main game in order to make more money.

[PooEgg]

Don't even get me started on EA. Since ME3 I have put all games carrying a EA logo on my avoid list. It is difficult too, since they control a few of my favorite series, but it can't be helped. These days their games always end up letting me down in one area or another. Either the game is buggy, or they cut out half the game, or both, and I am just tired of being let down by a company that I used to really admire.

[Megaton]

That's the problem. Gamers don't stand up for anything. You bring something like this up, and usually what you get in return is "it's only $15, get a job cheap ass, I want more Mass Effect". There's no critical thinking that goes into any of this. It's all primate functionality. Black and white. I WANT! TAKE MONEY!

There's no way it's going to get better, because gamers keep paying more as it gets worse.

[PooEgg]

True, but I also think that some (not all) gamers are getting smarter about what they buy and how they buy it.

I know my buying practices have changed. A couple of years ago I was spending over $2000 a year on games. This year I expect to spend less then $500, because I no longer pre-order and buy games on day 1. Instead I wait and pick them after I confirm that they are really worth the asking price - and more and more often I end up picking them up after the price drops, or I simply skip the game completely, because its hype didn't meet up with the final product.

I wonder how many other gamers are like me, and when you look at the lower sales in the video game industry it kinda makes you wonder what the REAL effect of shady DLC is on the gaming industry. Perhaps they are cutting their own throats, but just have not realized it yet.

[ThreshStar]

I don't have an issue with the concept of including future DLC on the disk and then unlocking it for future enjoyment, I just have an issue with the WAY a lot of companies are going about this.

Ultimately it depends on the actual company that's performing this process. IF EA is involved, it tends to feel seedy and a cash-grab as they've been known to milk things to the end. Same goes for Capcom.

I believe the concept itself can be utilized very well for gamers; I also know humans are flawed and greedy #&!^!%#% who don't mind taking advantage of their customer base for extra profits.

Time will tell on whether or not this will be nothing more than cutting content and holding it hostage until we shell out more than $60 to pay for the whole game. Which by the way, i believe THAT is how game companies will get more than $60 per game WITHOUT having to raise it all at once. Slowly heat the water instead of dropping us in a pot of boiling water....

[Christopher]

***I also know humans are flawed and greedy #&!^!%#% who don't mind taking advantage of their customer base for extra profits. ***

Don't forget, humans are flawed and greedy #&!^!%#% who don't mind obtaining content "illegally" in order to not spend any money.

It's always a two-way street. It's not like it's only the fat cat money makers at EA are the only people with low morals here. The same percentage, if not more, of the video game community has the same low morals.

[vortis]

"The same percentage, if not more, of the video game community has the same low morals."

lol @ the Ubisoft stats.

Sorry but PC gaming has proven to be very profitable, almost more-so than the retail console market. The numbers were about $18 billion for PC gaming in 2011, so it's not like pubs were actually hurting selling their games on PC.

Also, PC gamers spend more and get less on AAA titles. Have you seen what games sell for when they're first released on Steam? $60 for nothing but code, no booklet, no disc, no case, no nothing. That's thievery right there.

Also, no one has been able to confirm the actual piracy figures other than seeds/torrents and that's highly unreliable. Frictional Games and Mojang both admitted that piracy was a non-factor based on the amount of sales they get from digital distribution.

So no, it's not a two-street. More like a few cars driving on the shoulder lane when they aren't supposed to.

[hudsoniscool]

omg ive never heard so much crap. me3 was a 45 hour game, and all this shit about how this shouldnt be dlc. i didnt hear that about me1 which was a 30 hour game or me2 a 45 hour game.
Furthermore me3 was an amazing game, hense the 93 it has on meta and the millions of copies sold. just because the vocal minority dislikes it doesnt make it a bad game. shame on you for make 2 visionaries retire.

[jakethesnake]

I realize it is still popular to hate on EA and ME3, but this is a bit ridiculous. I hate DLC and almost never buy it (I prefer to wait and buy the complete edition). The Protean character that was day 1 DLC was complete garbage and stupid and really annoyed me and as much as I wanted it, I didn't buy it because I don't want to support these types of business practices.

That said, this DLC is coming out some 7 or so months after the game was released. Maybe the plot was written before the game came out, but if finished and cut from the game, then why did they wait so long to release it? If they had released it 5 months ago when a lot more people were play ME3 they could have made a lot more money. Since they didn't, I assume that was because it wasn't done yet. There is no controversy here. Maybe it is overpriced (probably, what DLC isn't these days?) and who knows if it will end up being good or not - but I don't for a second think that this was finished and cut to make more money - not because I trust EA, but because I know they want money and would have released it ages ago when it would have sold better if it was done.

[chaos_mechanica]

From what I understand this DLC may have you play as Aria instead of with her. But even if that isn't correct info (that i've recently heard) if they've tweaked it, extended it, made it twice as big as previous DLC... what else do you want?

Sure they cut it. Maybe it's because the game was getting too long. Maybe the pacing didn't fit in well with the script they had then. Maybe it was underdeveloped. I'd rather have a fully realized segment of story than a half-assed mission. Games have enough of that already. But besides the ending, all of the gameplay hours leading up to the end were great, fulfilling, and satisfying. They took up a lot of time, and Mass Effect 3 is no simply 5 hour game.

"From Ashes" did under-perform: but that's probably why they offered it as a free preorder-download and if you were really intent on getting the game, you probably get it like that. I didn't pay anything for it. So I can't complain.

Besides the last two minutes of the game, did we get what we paid for? Hell yes. A resounding yes. My $60 was well paid. If this DLC is much bigger than any other DLC that has come before it, then I don't think there's a--forgive me--massive problem with it being the price of a normal DLC pack for most shooters out there that offer a big chunk of new story.

[neoandrew]

Omega DLC has been made after the game release, they cut it form the original content because they have no time to finish it due to multiplayer mode.

I would choose multiplayer over omega mission and if this means that they needed to cut it in one moment, then it is ok, they gave me a great multiplayer.

Now i'm happy that they finished omega mission and i will have a chance to play it.

[Summons75]

Nooooo really? I think we all knew this with day 1 dlc....Bioware is lazy and money hungry of course they will cut out chucks of the game and call it dlc.

[shivvy24]

go fuck youselves EA !

[Enigma_2099]

As long as the standalone game feels like a complete game, and the DLC is optional as opposed to necessary, it doesn't matter.

[SeraphimBlade]

*groan* knew this was going to come up.

Honestly? I see nothing wrong with this. No more than I do with any other DLC. Do you have ANY idea how much gets changed, added and dropped from the original ideas during any development process? Hell, have you ever done a middle school group project?! This is just speculation, but maybe it was just a regular side mission, that they looked at, and decided to turn into a sprawling, multi-hour storyline.

The day one DLC? THAT was exploiting the fanbase. The protheans had hung over the entire series and they charged us $10 to answer fundamental questions about the universe. It was not "for long time fans," EVERYONE who had touched the series was interested. But I can't picture anybody REALLY caring about what happened to Omega to the same extent, and the game feels complete enough without this.

If DLC pisses you off in general, or you're buying into this conspiracy theory because EA is Hitler-Satan-AIDS, fine, whatever. I don't see anything special about this particular case though. I find it more believable this site is grasping for hits.

[Thatlalala]

As a player who enjoys the multiplayer a lot, I believe Bioware has more than earned back there merits.
With multiple free DLC packs that add weapons, classes, mods, maps, and enemies.
They also patch it every week, on Tuesday with tweaks, buffs, and nerfs.
The support is actually on par with most MMO's and better than other popular shooters.
Don't jump the gun and assume that content was cut, games have deadlines and sometimes things get cut or moved to make that deadline.
Also take into effect the pressure from EA and MS to charge for as much DLC as possible...
Just let it be, they're obviously trying. That's a lot more than other dev houses.

[2pacalypsenow]

meh lost interested in the series with the 3rd game the 2nd was awesome but the 3rd sucked

[Soldierone]

At this point in time I'd prefer to just go back to last generation. You know when games had to be complete on the disc? Yeah it sucks we cant get BONUS content to add to the game, but at least they were not working on "bonus" content before it was out. Instead we got the full game on a disc.....

[m23]

People are still on about this? Learn to write something useful instead of complaining all the time.

[PooEgg]

Just as you have the right to complain about their complaining, others have the right to complain about this.

I don't care if we are talking about DLC or gas prices, I think it is better that consumers speak their mind, instead of just opening their wallets and saying 'no problem, just take whatever you want'. Especially in this economy, people work hard to earn a living, and people should be questioning the quality of what they pay for.

[Stoppokingme]

It pi$$es me off when i get a game only for some DLC to be released a week later.

In my opinion it makes the game look incomplete, I would gladly wait a little longer for a full complete edition of a game rather than getting bits and pieces of it now and again.

If some content was meant to be on the original disc they should take the damn time to make sure everything that was intended for a game makes it into that game, rather than charging people extra for something that shouldn't be an extra.

But that's EA for you, if they were car salesmen they'd sell you a car and charge you extra for the steering wheel.

[paybackprahl]

This is a terrific example of jumping to conclusions. BioWare had a summary of the DLC's plot written into ME3's code, so that automatically means they STRIPPED it from the game to release months later? That's patently ridiculous. You're asking people to believe that the entire effing DLC was finished before ME3 came out, based solely on the fact that its plot was recorded in two paragraphs.

Get real.

[EditorAtGNG]

Comparing DLC to an Expansion is stupid at best. An Expansion is a game on its on, lasts for a long time (longer than any DLC combined) and offers a ton of new content for the player. A DLC is a cosmetic... thing meant to prolong the life of the game. Yes, they might be thought out during the making of the game and yes, they aren't necessarily cut from the original game, but damn it, they are nothing but a cheap trick by companies to milk their fanbase by offering limited amount of content.

This practise has cost us a lot... games are becoming shorter and shorter, the wealth of content is being reduced to make room for more DLC, and YES, the overall quality goes downhill. Ever wonder why Mass Effect 3 is so much shorter than Mass Effect 1? There were a couple of DLC's for the original but, nothing major (couple of weapons, what?). Fast forward to Mass Effect 3, we have MP and entire story missions that clearly could have been part of the main game.

Overall, companies are just ripping us off and they have a legitimate "claim" to this. It is their game! You can choose to support them in their claim or not. No one is forcing you to buy Mass Effect 3 and all its DLC bundles. People need to realize that if they don't want a trend to continue, they should make a stand.

[ghostman123]

If they waited to include all DLC on the disc it wouldn't have released in March. Hell it might not have even released this year. I have no problem with DLC, as long as it's worth the price. I thought ME3, as it was, was worth the price tag it had. I've said it before and i'll say it again, the ending sucked but those last 15 minutes didn't discredit the rest of the 30+ hour game for me. What about the levels on Tuchancha? The squad mate sacrifice? The Asari homeworld? The citadel under attack, the mission on Mars, I could go on. The game was a blast, up until those final moments, and I stand by that. If they're offering more I'm down. Bought and enjoyed the Leviathan DLC and I'll be buying this as well.

[Vortex3D]

Including all the DLCs on disc may not happen. The upcoming Mass Effect trilogy release contain zero DLCs on X360 version. PC version includes the DLC for ME1 only. On PS3, it doesn't have release date probably because the standalone ME2 version included all but one DLC. If the same ME2 DLCs are included in the trilogy plus ME1 game, it creates unfairness for other platform because for PS3 gamers, they are getting a lot more contents than others.

[x5exotic]

I'm playing this atm, and I gotta say, it's not good at all.

Story is cliche, gameplay is extremely repetitive and the areas are linear, they don't even bother to change the setting, 1/3 is all snow, 1/3 is all labs and metal doors and shit like that and 1/3 is some desert and/or a few trees.

The soundtrack is the most generic, it's nothing to talk about (except the galaxy mini-game track)

And that "fagget out" guy pisses me off a lot >.<

[Vortex3D]

I think many ME3 fans including myself issues with story based DLC is we already know the endings. Who do I care going back to play some of the missing chapters that lead to the same conclusion in the endings?

But I do want to see post-ME3 ending story based DLCs without Shepard.

[ghostman123]

So even after the suicide mission and destroying the Human Reaper, you had no interest in Arrival, Overlord or Lair of the Shadow Broker? ME2 ended as well, and had a ton of post-ending DLC, but no-one seemed to complain then. I don't see ME3 as being any different. It's not the end of the series, it's the end of Shepard, that's it.