{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/30/2014 5:13:02 PM
2
The question is not whether it's absolutely affordable, but whether it's relatively good value compared to what's offered by the competition.
Rockstar, for instance, is selling GTA: San Andreas for $4; 20% what this DLC costs.
Mass Effect 3 gave away DLC of this scope, not once but three times.
If you wanted to spend $20 on a multiplayer team shooter RPG, you'd probably get better value from Mass Effect 3 than you would The Dark Below.
English
-
I agree, that's a great point.
-
Not that I inherently disagree, but let's be real. Mass Effect/EA gave away DLC to save face after the shitstorm that the ending brought. Not because they're nice.
-
You're thinking of the single player DLC, specifically the "make the ending suck less" expansion*. I'm talking about the multiplayer DLC, all of which was (and was planned to be) free. The aim of the multiplayer game was to give people who'd finished the game a reason not to take it forthwith to GameStop, and thus drive first-party sales. Charging for the DLC would defeat this purpose. If you've not played Mass Effect's multiplayer, I recommend you do. It's very much like Destiny, albeit on smaller maps. Oh, and you get Mass Effect 3 with it. * something Destiny could do with.
-
No, I'm talking about all the DLC. Do you have any proof that it was intended to be free from the get-go? Because when the first part launched on 360, it cost $10, leading people to believe that it wasn't going to be free initially.
-
http://blog.bioware.com/2012/04/06/mass-effect-3-resurgence-pack/ There was never any kind of compatibility pack, because the multiplayer expansions were all intended to be free updates.
-
I can't take that link seriously, sorry. EA is such a dirty company, I wouldn't trust anything they put out.
