BioWare defends Dragon Age DLC

By Robert Purchese Published 5 November, 2009

Not designed to "bilk" you for money.

Dragon Age lead systems designer George Zoeller has explained that it was BioWare's decision what to put in the DLC and what to charge for it.

"For what it's worth, EA has nothing to do with this. The game was designed with limited inventory for a number of reasons, the least of which being to limit save-game size and therefore load times," commented Zoeller on a Fidgit article.

"I'm fine with you being upset about the item limit design in the game - and fine with you being upset about the chest being included in the DLC, but I must protest the 'Oh, EA is pushing the limit for more money' tag-line, because that's just not what has happened.

"I categorically reject that any features or game systems in this game were designed or removed to 'bilk users for more money'," he added.

Dragon Age: Origins launches on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 tomorrow. Three batches of DLC will be available from launch, and one of them - Warden's Keep - needs to be paid for. The other two - The Stone Prisoner and Blood Armour - are free to all legitimate owners of the dark fantasy RPG.

We're addressing the console and PC releases of Dragon Age: Origins separately. Our PC review can be read now.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (47) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Xerx3s #1 2 years ago

    "but I must protest the 'Oh, EA is pushing the limit for more money' tag-line, because that's just not what has happened."

    Of course not, EA is pushing the limit for charity. Money has nothing to do with it.

    ""I categorically reject that any features or game systems in this game were designed or removed to 'bilk users for more money',""

    Yes because you designed the game so that you could later on milk the user for more money on things that should have been in the game in the first place.

    It's your good right to do so but please don't bs people.

  • JimWest #2 2 years ago

    A major reason companies now use DLC a lot more (apart from faster Internet connections) is due to higher levels of pre owned and pirated games. With each pre owned game sale, developers are losing out on money that the middle man(shops) are taking from them.

    It's simple really it's why I'm sure digital distrubtion will be the way forward for companies. Business is business and the bottom line is money.

  • ryandsimmons #3 2 years ago

    So... the DLC will make loading times longer and the game slower?

  • Shikasama #4 2 years ago

    JUST IN!

    Designer of game defends design of game!

    Tune in at 11 for more.

  • Evolution #5 2 years ago

    @Crofto

    "and it's the fault of you."

    It's my fault? :(

  • penhalion #6 2 years ago

    "I categorically reject that any features or game systems in this game were designed or removed to 'bilk users for more money'," he added.

    Yea because technically it was designed and removed to rob people of money not bilk them! For instance the chest is saved along with your game so save game size was never a valid issue was it!

  • VibratingDonkey #7 2 years ago

    Well that's shitty on top of the dubiousness that is day one DLC. Anyone who buys this DLC is now a legitimate asshole. DLC is so screwed up these days, thanks a lot all you people who keep gobbling it up without even thinking twice. Slippery slope and all that.

    On the point of this guy's lousy damage control; it is lousy. Do they think we're dumb dumbheads or something?
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 15:25

  • MaxiSleep #8 2 years ago

    George Zoeller

    I categorically reject your statement. Twat.

  • ChthonicEcho #9 2 years ago

    Couldn't care less.

    What annoys me beyond measure, however, is that there are actually NPCs that give you the DLC quest. If I hadn't purchased DLC, then what is the point of those guys showing up in my game, aside from rubbing it in? That's just low.

  • Darren #10 2 years ago

    I can't believe anyone is griping about premium DLC for a game that already has 60 to 100 hours of content in there. It's not like you need ANY DLC for a while and if you do then there's already two lots of FREE DLC to download. If Dragon Age: Origins had been a 5 hour game with the publishers promoting DLC ahead of its release, like so many sadly do these days, then I'd be miffed but you can't really grumble when a game already offers weeks of gameplay. Well I wouldn't anyway.

  • VibratingDonkey #11 2 years ago

    @Darren
    You have a point that everyone has to find at least somewhat agreeable. Even without this 3 hours(?) of content, the game would most definitely still be worth $60. But it you need to pay $67 to get the full game, then that's rather icky. So slippery slope. Principles. Sets a bad precedent.

    In the light of other screwed up things going on these days I'd probably just shrug a little as well, whilst also frowning, but the issue with this DLC has only little do with Bioware wanting money for it on day one, and very much to do with what basically amounts to charging for a patch. Which is really screwed up and warrants pulling an angry face whilst flipping the bird.

  • thesombrerokid #12 2 years ago

    i don't have a problem with the dlc, i have a problem with the UK being separated and put behind both the US and EU releases with absolutely no justification! it's like they want us to steal it.

  • UncleLou #13 2 years ago

    Of course they held back content to sell us later - this is common shit with gaming today, and it's the fault of you.

    Yeah, because if it wouldn't be DLC, they would have nonetheless developed it all, and given it us for free. Paranoid, much?

    Even if stuff is already on a disc and unlocked later, that doesn't mean it would have been free if there was no DLC. Because, much more likely, it was developed in the first place because they knew they could charge for it later.

    Now there might be examples to the contrary, but the general whining about DLC being cut out from the main game is nonsense.

    That said, the game already has 70 hours content or so, so in this case it's not too bad (compared to, say, Fallout 3, which was diabolically low on content until several add-ons were released).

    More nonsense.

    Fallout 3 is massive without any DLC, unless you just do the main quest. The game lasted me for a good 40 hours, with a good third of spots on the map undetected by me when I finished it, and I am a quick gamer rather than a very thorough one.

  • Darren #14 2 years ago

    Just seen Crofto's comment re: Fallout 3's "diabolically low" amount of content for the standard game, which quite frankly astounds me as there's dozens and dozens of hours of gaming there alone and I certainly never felt short changed. The majority of the add-ons actually added very little to the experience IMO and most of them were average.

  • darkmorgado #15 2 years ago

    I don't see the problem. The game is already awesome and MASSIVE out of the box, and two of the 3 existing DLC comes free with a legitimate purchase of the game. The other is an optional sidequest that has no impact on the main story - so an argument that you "don't have the complete game" is rubbish. It's just more content if you still want to play the game after completing the already-epic campaign.
    Also, the game could well have been feature complete and awaiting release for a while now - we all know how long MS's approval process can be (Darwinia + anyone?). Perhaps during the wait they spent their time creating DLC and managed to complete it in time for launch?
    Again, I have no problem with them trying a new approach to tackle second-hand sales. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the people complaining about DLC are the ones that are just p*ssed off because they plan on buying it second-hand (or pirated) and realise that the (otherwise free if you buy first-hand) content will basically take the cost up to first-hand levels. Oh boo hoo. Companies spend millions on making these games, they deserve a return on their investment which the second-hand market totally denies them. They've said the plan to focus on DLC for several years for Dragon Age. In effect, it's simply taking a different approach to the traditional "expansion packs" - rather than waiting a longer time for large amounts of content, drip-feed smaller chunks instead. Makes perfectly valid business sense as it provides a more regular and steady income stream than sinking millions into one large expansion pack that might take a year or two to complete.

    As others have said, if the base game was feature-light, then the complaints will be valid. But it clocks in between 60-100 hours out the box, with 2 of the 3 DLCs free for those who choose to support the 5 years of effort gone into making the game, (and the third free with CE), ships with modding tools out the box as well, and has been picking up widespread acclaim.

    Stop bitching.

  • tachometer #16 2 years ago

    I reckon DLC quests and missions are fair to charge for but what's this "chest" business? Are they saying if you buy the "chest" DLC you can carry more equipment or something?

  • ParanoidZombie #17 2 years ago

    OK, but just for the record don't forget that second hand buyers are legitimate too.

  • Machiavellian #18 2 years ago

    Yea, everything darkmorgado said, saved me a lot of time.

  • Xerx3s #19 2 years ago

    Expansion packs where so much better than DLC. You'd get a fuckload more for a fuckload less and actually owned what you bought. I used to buy them all of the time but I rarely buy DLC. The first DLC that I bought in over a year was the FO3 expansion pack which was a hardcopy bundle of all the stuff for a fraction of the price.

  • Machiavellian #20 2 years ago

    OK, but just for the record don't forget that second hand buyers are legitimate too.

    Only if they purchase DLC, if not who is to say that they will purchase your next game without going second hand (old pirate excuse).

    For the chest within the DLC, it seems like its not something needed from reports I have read from people who have finished the game. I guess if the game was broken without the chest then it would be an issue.

  • ParanoidZombie #21 2 years ago

    "Only if they purchase DLC, if not who is to say that they will purchase your next game without going second hand (old pirate excuse). "

    I buy 75% of my games second hand, I can live with the idea that I'm gonna be treated like a second class gaming citizen, but this whole propangada that tries to put me and others in the same bag as pirates is just obscene, considering that new games cost 70€ which is a lot of money in the world I live in.
    And I'll purchase this DLC if it's any good, which was not the case in the latest Bioware product I bought (and it was a new copy BTW).

  • hiddenranbir #22 2 years ago

    Bioware is EA. So EA made the decision, in a way!

    Saving space? Maybe not being so intent on making ugly 3D could have been a better way to save space!
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 17:07

  • xentar #23 2 years ago

    the argument about dlc serving as anti-pirate and anti-preowned measure has some merit. And while i dont have anything against the anti-pirate stuff I cant agree with publishers ome gamers bashing secondhand sales of games. Games are not different than say books but stores with used books have extremely long tradition and I cant remember a book publisher making war on used books shops. It is just nuts to me.

    You buy a disk, you own the licence and you are free to play it or to burn it or to sell it further. Its up to the publisher and developer to make game good enough that it will get as many sales as needed to generate profits. Second hand sales may not be hurting initial sales at all, quite the contrary: many people buy games only because of trade-in programs and the ability to sell used game on ebay after completing it. And then they buy a new brand new game and the cycle goes on.

  • darkmorgado #24 2 years ago

    70 euros for 60-100 hours of gameplay (not counting replayability) comes down to something like between 0.6-1 euro per hour.

    The cinema costs around a tenner a ticket, films last on average 90 minutes, so going to the cinema comes down to something like 5-6 an hour.

    So the "games are too expensive" excuse doesn't cut it. If you want to buy second-hand, then go ahead. But don't bitch that you are not getting the same amount of content as someone who actually puts money in the hands of the people who spent years of time, effort and money into making the product, or bitch that you don't think it's fair that those companies should see a cent of your money at all.

  • ParanoidZombie #25 2 years ago

    "70 euros for 60-100 hours of gameplay (not counting replayability) comes down to something like between 0.6-1 euro per hour"

    No. If a game was worth 7000 hours of gameplay, it wouldn't be worth 7000€. And a 2h30 movie isn't a wiser purchase than a 1h30 one (take transformers2 vs 28weeks later, as an example). The issue is not the € per hour ratio, it's about the money you're willing to spend on a hobby.

  • john_silence #26 2 years ago

    Well that's well said, then. The game is absolutely ginormous in the first place anyway, don't you think there were easier ways to a quick cash-in elsewhere in the video game world? RPG development is risky, DLC is one of the ways to alleviate the risk involved. It took so much time and manpower to develop Dragon Age, that the idea they'd be trying to cash-cow users sounds intrinsically irrelevant.

  • kongzi #27 2 years ago

    There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no really!

    kind of the same sorta statement isn't it.

  • Rack #28 2 years ago

    Dragon Age may be fair value (really I won't know until I play it, 80 hours of cheap filler for £40 would definitely be a rip off), but the DLC is clearly designed to bilk us out of a little extra cash. Certainly it won't represent even acceptable value for money but EA have cottoned onto the fact that people are spectacularly bad at understanding the value of small amounts of money, £5 appears to be worth less than 1% of £40 in most peoples eyes and EA are going to take them for all they're worth on this principle.

    They're entirely within their rights to do so, but these kind of cheap lies won't endear us to Bioware in any way shape or form.

  • TheWretched #29 2 years ago

    Lol... limit gamesave size... which can ONLY mean 360, because PC and PS3 have all a harddisk (and most 360s probably do too). What a bad excuse!

  • Rack #30 2 years ago

    Good god, I hadn't read the details here. Christ EA have just overtaken Activision in the Evil stakes.

    Maybe I should cancel the pre-order, holding back content is one thing, deliberately trimming essential game features to sell back to the player?

    No save unless you spend an extra fiver, no option to skip cutscenes unless you spend another tenner? One game slot and no option to delete it except for another twenty quid?

    No, I don't want to go down that route.

  • Mcstrife #31 2 years ago

    I get the feeling the vanilla game is priced too low to make a decent profit and that DLC is supposed to help out. I don't know, but it seems like a really expensive game to make compared to other titles at the same price level.
    So yes, maybe overpriced DLC, but is the notion of an underpriced main game so farfetched?

  • sirtacos #32 2 years ago

    They're a company. They want to make a profit. I'm outraged by this. How dare they!

  • metallicorphan #33 2 years ago

    you can't really blame people for thinking it was EA's fault,they have that reputation(or at least they did,i thought they had started to get better with this kind of stuff)..for instance,Brutal Legend has just got some DLC,multiplayer maps and an axe for i think 400 points...yet the size of the DLC is in the KB(not MB...108kb i believe)..so,that means its already on the disc right?..those two maps and the axe can't be just 108kb..the axe on its own maybe

    then you have the arguement,if its already on the disc,which i paid for...why am i paying again?

    again,this may not be EA's decision/fault but its usually always their games they publish


    as for Dragon Age...13 hrs until i play!!!,LOL

  • davisorle #34 2 years ago

    Get yor shit straighty before you get public playing all butthurt retard instead of thinking that everyone is a fool. If it wasnt for you to make money then add all 3 instant downloads into something WAY cheaper than what you did since you admit its missing shit and/or limited. Simple as that. o dont tell me/us that this wasnt to make money. Me and everyone else has every right to accuse you of anything when you did nothing to prove anyone otherwise. Simple as that. Just freaking deal with it.

  • actionfitz #35 2 years ago

    ""I categorically reject that any features or game systems in this game were designed or removed to 'bilk users for more money'," he added."
    ---

    hmm. OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... (until I read the next line)
    ---

    "Dragon Age: Origins launches on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 tomorrow. Three batches of DLC will be available from launch, and one of them - Warden's Keep - needs to be paid for."
    ---
    lets see that again shall we?

    Launches Tomorrow...
    3 batches of DLC available...
    Paid for...

    What the fuck are you smoking mate?
    You're not trying to 'Bilk' us for money?

    The entire fucking concept of paid-for-DLC is that such a thing cost money and a development budget to produce, and thats why we are charged for it, ie expansion packs etc...
    You're game hasn't even been released yet! this 'Content' was produced using your initial game budget. You will be recouping this from sales of the game!

    Im gonna call it like I see it here.
    you have cut ready made content out of your game to be sold off in segment as DLC to, and I quote, "Bilk us for money"

    you absolute Bilking bilker.
    :/

  • Quixz #36 2 years ago

    I believe him.. 2 free DLC out of 3 is not bad at all.

  • darkmorgado #37 2 years ago

    Exactly, and as I have already said, the notoriously long approval process between a game being completed and actually being shipped is more than enough time to create a couple of short mission quests.
    The existing DLC is there as an incentive to legitimate first-hand purchasers. Hardly milking.

  • Antaios #38 2 years ago

    Bollocks. If you design a game with certain restrictions and you're fixing those restrictions with DLC you're charging for, you're deliberately "bilking users for money." If a bigger inventory wasn't possible or a wise thing to put into the game then, it won't be now. At least try and be honest about it.

  • raion #39 2 years ago

    "the argument about dlc serving as anti-pirate and anti-preowned measure has some merit."

    would be if having €20 worth of dlc meant having €20 less on retail price ;P

  • Rack #40 2 years ago

    Has anyone actually read this? This isn't just day one DLC, this is day one DLC that is the only way to get essential game features with actual in game salesman hawking their shoddy wares.

  • SL33PY #41 2 years ago

    I see people in here justifying the downloadable content because the game already has 70 hours of gameplay. I respect their opinions of course, but...

    Baldurs Gate 2, Same company, No DLC, had Between 50 and 150 hours of gameplay, depending how many side quests you'd do.

    70 hours (assumingly with all side quests) vs 150 .... need I say more?

  • jonfon #42 2 years ago

    "70 euros for 60-100 hours of gameplay (not counting replayability) comes down to something like between 0.6-1 euro per hour."

    70 Euros? Why would you be paying 70 euros for it? It's 35 on Play.com (PC Version).

  • Stroller4 #43 2 years ago

    @ Machiavellian

    Are you seriously suggesting that people who buy second hand games from Ebay or Game etc are the same as pirates unless they buy DLC? You are a fool! I can't think of a single instance where your argument holds up, wether it's within the sphere of gaming or in any other.

    Expansion packs used to bring new game modes, hours of extra gameplay, adding real longevity to titles that were good enough to have a loyal fanbase willing to make a purchase long after the original game came came out. This was serious added value to some classic games. Current DLC, with the exception of those for GTA IV, offer little return for the money.

    As for DLC that merely unlocks content already on the disk from launch.... now that's piracy! DLC so close to launch, that unlocks content already on the disk.... not only is that daylight robbery but it assumes some staggering naivety of the people they are selling to. I guess that in your case they nailed it.
    Edited by 1 at 06/11/09 @ 14:52

  • hiddenranbir #44 2 years ago

    I think they're fools if they didn't do it to bilk money. They're in the money making business.

  • metalangel #45 2 years ago

    All you people who defend this as 'just them making money' don't seem to grasp that people who very obviously rip their customers off tend to lose those customers very quickly.

  • draycen #46 2 years ago

    Utter nonsense. If they're not milking people for cash, then why charge for the DLC?!

  • BruntFCA #47 2 years ago

    This is a RIPOFF.

    Pretty much every RPG released int he last 20 years has had a chest to store your goods in.

    As for limiting storage to save disk space that's **laughable**. Assuming 65,000 items, thats 2 bytes per item. Give us say 500 Items, thats a MASSIVE 1K of RAM. Thats one thousandth of a Megabyte for those too young to remember computers with 40K of RAM.

    So when you DO download the DLC that gives the chest, does my 360 run out of space? No? So what crap are you talking about...!

    Warning... **COLLECTORS EDITION** does **NOT** contain the Chest.

    IF Bioware were making cars, the Wheels would be an optional extra.
    Edited by 1 at 17/11/09 @ 23:45