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)."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
matgrowcott2970d ago

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?!

Godmars2902970d ago

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.

Kalowest2969d ago

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

da_2pacalypse2969d ago

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.

nukeitall2969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )

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.

caseh2969d ago


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.

colonel1792969d ago

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.

caseh2969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )


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.

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...

Godmars2902969d ago

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?

NonApplicable2969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )


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.

BattleAxe2969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )

"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....

RedSky2969d ago

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.

matgrowcott2969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )


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?


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.


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.

RedSky2969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )


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 2142969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )

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_Yeah2968d ago

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

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 2968d ago
cleft52969d ago

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.

PooEgg2969d ago

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_shin2969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )

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

vickers5002969d ago


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).

Megaton2969d ago

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-Spud2969d ago

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.

Irishguy952969d ago

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

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2969d ago
Mutant-Spud2969d ago

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 Kotex2969d ago

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

SilentNegotiator2969d ago

"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?

sjaakiejj2969d ago

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.

geddesmond2969d ago

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.

matgrowcott2969d ago

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.

Sony3602969d ago

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?

Godmars2902969d ago

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.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2968d ago
sjaakiejj2969d ago

"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.

Christopher2969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )

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).

Kalowest2969d ago

DLC should start being made after a game is released.

Christopher2969d ago

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.

Kalowest2969d ago

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).

Christopher2969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )

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.

john22969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )

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.

Christopher2969d ago

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.

vortis2969d ago

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.

FiachDubh2968d ago


Writing? Maybe.
Filming? No.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2968d ago
matgrowcott2969d ago


"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.

MasterD9192969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )

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'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.

Kalowest2969d ago (Edited 2969d ago )

"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.

Christopher2969d ago

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.

MasterD9192969d ago

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.

Megaton2969d ago

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.