Game wasn't perfect, but i enjoyed it enough that I'm ready to ask, is there any DLC coming? DLC with storyline, not multiplayer only stuff.
DAI is just another in a line of games where the multiplayer was tacked on either as an afterthought(ME3, TR2013) or built as a revenue stream to bilk the gullible from their money.
ME3's multiplayer was pretty fun, I thought. I had some friends to play it with. They were much more into it than me, but I still enjoyed it. It didn't at all feel like an afterthought. There was a comprehensive variety of characters, abilities, weapons, maps, etc., and it was supported post-release with a lot of free character, weapon, and map packs. Well, the maps were completely free; the characters and weapons had to be unlocked. I thought it was pretty ingenious how the game implemented a microtransaction system for unlocking weapons and characters, but left it so you could still unlock all that stuff just by accumulating points through playing multiplayer. Because of that revenue stream from microtransactions, they were able to release the map, weapon, and character packs for free.
DAI seems to be using a similar system. I haven't bothered with it, but if it's at all similar, I would probably enjoy it as well.
They gave away the free content to try gloss over the controversy behind ME3's notoriously bad endings. Free stuff is a good way to make people forget, especially short sighted gamers. And since ME3's multiplayer mode was so pointless, if they didn't release a steady stream of free content, it would have withered completely within a few short months.
Because people supported the afterthought mp in ME3, you now get more micro transactions in DAI. And if you support it in DAI, you'll get more in the next Mass Effect and more in the next Dragon Age.
As long as the microtransactions don't gate off content from non-paying players, and if the paying players enable BioWare to release more free content, I don't see this as a problem.
Last time I checked, EA Bioware have almost never released any of their real DLC, the story DLC, for any of their games for free. Even sales are extremely rare.
Supporting this crap is why we have micro transactions in 60 dollars games. Knock it off.
DAI is just another in a line of games where the multiplayer was tacked on either as an afterthought(ME3, TR2013) or built as a revenue stream to bilk the gullible from their money.
...and we're not talking about story DLC. We're talking about the multiplayer add-ons. I'd rather have a system of microtransactions that don't gate me off from any actual game content rather than having to buy each map pack for $10.
I have to disagree on ME3 MP,it was designed from start to be included,personally I find MP more fun in ME3 then DA:I MP which seems to be missing a lot of fun factor in MP,early days yet so maybe they can polish it up.
...and we're not talking about story DLC. We're talking about the multiplayer add-ons. I'd rather have a system of microtransactions that don't gate me off from any actual game content rather than having to buy each map pack for $10.
Last time I checked, EA Bioware have almost never released any of their real DLC, the story DLC, for any of their games for free. Even sales are extremely rare.
Supporting this crap is why we have micro transactions in 60 dollars games. Knock it off.
I'm talking about both, but we usually only get 2 to 3 'story' DLCs per game. Then a fuck ton of shovelware multiplayer DLC, which usually includes maps and weapons. All stuff that used to be free. Instead, you've been coaxed into paying micro transactions for it. And even more egregious, people laud this as a good thing. Its obscene.
It added nothing to the game, and likely diverted funds from the real game. ME3 is the very definition of after thought multiplayer. Multiplayer is only in ME3 and DAI because EA's execs said they wanted multiplayer in every game they make.
You shouldn't have to pay for map packs. It's just that gamers have been conditioned, as of recently, to pay for things that should be free. Expansions are worth paying for, but that should be story, gameplay, map and other additions. Map packs are a joke.
This.
DA:O had story DLCs at launch, if I remember correctly. The warden keep and stone prisoner one. They were OK, but should have been part of the game. They were free with the collectors version of the game, as I recall. More arrived later, with some item stuff too, but I generally don't buy any DLC for games that I pay full-price for.
"The Stone Prisoner" was free with any new copy of the game. The explanation given at the time was that the content of The Stone Prisoner would have had to be cut from the game entirely if they hadn't been able to release it as DLC.
It added nothing to the game, and likely diverted funds from the real game. ME3 is the very definition of after thought multiplayer. Multiplayer is only in ME3 and DAI because EA's execs said they wanted multiplayer in every game they make.
I'm not PAYING for anything. I haven't spent a dime on ME3 microtransactions. I have, however, played plenty on the free maps and unlocked several of the free add-on characters and weapons.
You may not have been interested in it, but if players like Mem, my friends, and myself enjoyed it, then it did add value to the game. And if they created the multiplayer with the intent of sustaining it through microtransactions, they wouldn't have needed to divert funds from the single player part of hte game.
Since when have map packs been free? (and just to be clear, ME3's free multiplayer DLC wasn't just maps, but also new weapons, playable characters, and even a whole new enemy faction (the Collectors)). Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc., all release their multiplayer DLC and map packs as paid add-ons.
"The Stone Prisoner" was free with any new copy of the game. The explanation given at the time was that the content of The Stone Prisoner would have had to be cut from the game entirely if they hadn't been able to release it as DLC.
Yeah, it's a phenomenon that is less than 10 years old players are suckers for it. No thanks.
Wrong again,it added multiplay,that is the point of MP,besides you have now two options ie play the single player storyline or jump into MP and try all the different classes and maps,also plenty of weapons and upgrades etc...
End of the day you now have more options so never a bad thing,you decide what you want to do.
You forget a lot of gamers like to go online and group up,either way your call.
Yeah, it's a phenomenon that is less than 10 years old players are suckers for it. No thanks.
Mass Effect is a story driven game. The multiplayer added nothing to that. And yes, its still a negative to the game for 1 reason; budgeting. Implementing the multiplayer cost money and developer time. Time and money that would have been better served improving and adding to the real game. ME3 multiplayer was nothing more than a generic 3rd person shooter. And if you want an action multiplayer shooter, there's plenty of decent mp shooters are there to satisfy that market. Not nearly enough good single player story games with production values like Mass Effect.
Because people accepted it though, you'll get more microtransaction laden content in future games from EA. I wouldn't be shocked to see that Mass Effect 4 you'll have to buy extra armor sets for 2 dollars, ship upgrades for 4 dollars, special crew unlocks for 5, and so on. Publishers today get giddy when they see how gullible younger gamers are and how they'll pay for the simplest things.
The multiplayer added nothing to the story side of the game, sure. It wasn't supposed to, it expanded the experience and value of the game to include multiplayer. It sounds like part of what you're saying is just that the multiplayer added nothing to the game because it was multiplayer, which is circular reasoning.
The multiplayer wasn't generic. You had a variety of races and classes to pick from -- with all the free add-ons, there's a total of 59 characters to choose from. There was a variety of weapons, abilities, etc. It's distinct from the generic Halo/Call of Duty style PVP in that it's variations of PVE "horde mode". All told, it's pretty fun, and there were a lot of people who thought so. ME3's multiplayer was the least criticized part of the game when it came out. Is it worth buying the game just for the multiplayer? No, of course not. Did multiplayer feel like a worthwhile addition to the game past the single player? Certainly. In fact, playing the single player makes the multiplayer more fun, because that adds the appeal of "Oh wow I can play as a geth Juggernaut! Or an asari Vanguard! Or a salarian Infiltrator! Cool!"
The microtransactions in multiplayer are separate from those in single player. I remain opposed to paying for things like weapon packs in single player. But again, if they created the multiplayer with the intent of sustaining it through microtransactions, they wouldn't have needed to divert funds from the single player part of the game.
We won't be agreeing anytime soon, I see. I do wonder if your stance will change as the micro transactions continue to grow unchecked like a cancer in games though. Are you prepared to pay 70 dollars for a game, a monthly fee for multiplayer, plus the MTs for weapons, characters, classes, maps, etc? Thats the road gaming is on, and one that some seem proud to be on.