We don't know about you, but we're a bit sick of season passes. Granted, sometimes they are worth the price of admission - just look at The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt's expansion pass - but more often than not, all a season pass amounts to is the promise of future content at a set price. Content that could quite easily end up being rubbish, we might add.
Thankfully, Mass Effect: Andromeda is bucking the largely AAA trend, with BioWare general manager Aaryn Flynn telling a fan on Twitter that the sci-fi sequel won't sport a season pass. When asked about the possibility, Flynn simply replied "nope", before saying that the studio will talk more about its downloadable content plans at a later date.
Okay, so we've based a story on a one-word tweet, but hey, the studio's stance makes for a refreshing change of pace - and when we stop to think about it, that's actually pretty sad.
As for thoughts on Andromeda's post-launch DLC, we think it's fair to assume that BioWare will be cooking up a couple of expansions, as it's historically so fond of doing. But what would you like to see? Land on an alien planet in the comments section below.
[source twitter.com]
Comments 36
Probably go down the same route as Inquisition and then release a GOTY edition a year later.
In general EA don't seem to really do season passes (as far as I can remember anyway). Battlefront had one and Battlefield has the Premium thing, but I don't think any of their single player games have ever had an all-encompassing season pass. I prefer it that way. I have bought the odd season pass in the past but they always end up disappointing. I prefer to pick and choose which bits of DLC I actually want to play.
I just hope that eventually all the DLC will actually be on disc for the GOTY edition rather than just being codes like I think they did with DAI.
A season pass for DLC is no different to pre ordering the main game. We see examples all the time why this is a bad idea.
Good, I hate season passes. The Resogun one was worth it but most of the time as you say, they're really not.
My biggest issue is that always a season pass or DLC or the special edition game always drops in price before all or any of the DLC content drops, basically cr*pping on early adopters supporting the game.
Season passes are a thing that needs to go away. Asking for money from people on the good faith that you'll deliver something worthwhile is second only to people actually paying money on the good faith that they'll deliver something worthwhile in the category of dumb things in gaming. Most of the time they're not worth it, and you're much better off waiting to see what the DLC is like.
Personally I don't see an issue with Season Passes. Ok so you may not want to pay up front for all DLC but if you do want ALL content, its the cheapest way to buy and often grants additional bonuses (mostly cosmetic) too so you end up with even more for less money.
No-one says you have to buy the Season Pass the second it becomes available either - in fact you could wait until the last pack is released and then buy the Season Pass once you know exactly what that will give you. CoD (as that traditionally has 4 packs) could end up costing £48 (£12 per pack) for 16maps and 4 Zombie maps. You could get all for £35-£40 and get a few extra cosmetic items too. Its the same with Battlefront and Battlefield too.
I would much prefer to be offered the chance to buy ALL at a discount than buy all individually and pay more. At the end of the day, its a choice and its better for gamers. If you don't want to buy all or any of the DLC, then don't buy a Season Pass - you can still decide to buy individually or wait and buy the Season Pass at the the end of the season if you want...
Mass Effect: Andromeda is not a game that opens itself up for DLC. I do expect there to be some MP similar to ME3's and I really can't see that being popular enough to merit DLC but by giving away a few new Maps over the year, it may encourage more people to play. I expect this to be funded more from 'micro-transactions' like ME3 had - packs! I know ME2 had 'story' content but I doubt and hope that ME:A doesn't (unless free) as that could impact on Andromedas follow up story and then feel almost compulsory to buy.
I have bought season passes in the past and always happy with them. Bioware/Mass effect prodce some of the best DLC I have ever player for a game. It stops a situation like with Fallout 4 where you had a massive increase in the price of the season pass when they realised content cost more to produce. This does not also limit support for the game after launch.
I think like with ME3 they will produce some bigger DLC expansions. Whatevere they make I will buy it as am happy to support this franchise which has never let me down.
Buy a season pass if you want to support a game. If you do not then do not buy it. You are always saving on the content if you buy season passes.
It's long past due for publishers to ditch the season pass model. To me, along with publishers scheduling release dates for their games so close together to try and compete and drown each other out, is what's causing consumer fatigue in this industry. I mean, if sales are down for most games from holiday season, then there's the proof.
Excellent news. Didn't Ubisoft say something similar recently also about their future games?
I've never been into season passes either and in fact the only one I've ever bought is Driveclub's when it was super-cheap on sale.
DLC is an important revenue stream for games. We all know the problems with the 2nd hand market which dramatically reduces money to developers. Its a good opportunity to say to the company I enjoy your game and want to spport you.
Shame, as that would've convinced me to buy the game, I would've gotten a discount on future DLC and the security of knowing I already had it. Instead they're offering early playtime with EA Access? You know what's worse than season passes? Offering "super deluxe" editions of your game that boast nothing more than cosmetic items and multiplayer boosts and items for $100. They are definitely trying to sell some swampland in Florida on that one.
@NintendoFan4Lyf This is a terrible idea. Planning DLC before a game launches is very important. When a game launches (actually, when it goes gold), the development team gets moved on to other projects. A small skeleton team remains to bug fix and make minor additions. Often times the team that "moves on" most of them get laid off until the next big project is in full swing (at which point the development studio hires new people). Planning for the existence of DLC (and working on it) has allowed many, many, development teams to stay together and to stay employed during the "off" periods. It is very important to the industry.
As for the topic at hand, the main article seems to miss a huge point. A Season Pass does not have to be bought before all of the DLC is out and known. All Season Passes that I know of can also be bought after all the DLC gets released, saving you some money if you plan on buying all the DLC.
@dryrain This is EA - a company who are listed on the Nasdaq and have net sales of 4.5 billion pounds. This line you say every time about the second hand market is crazy and stupid.
@thedevilsjester That's not what NF4Lyf is saying, what's he's saying is stop announcing 'extra' stuff before the game us announced. Something I agree with.
@NintendoFan4Lyf @JesWood13 @LieutenantFatman @johncalmc Agreed 100%
We need someone to perform an investigation about the truths and untruths on the issues involving DLC, post launch content and Microtransactions. Its obvious to me, the amount of misinformation has led to ill informed game fans being ripped off. Its pure and utter greed.
@NintendoFan4Lyf @themcnoisy Ok, as a gamer, I still respectfully disagree (when talking about single player games). If there is going to be DLC for a game, I want to know as soon as possible.
There are two major reasons for this. The first is for those of us that platinum games. Often we complete them 100% and move on. Its not usually worth revisiting a game for DLC if you 100%'ed it. (The exception is multiplayer games that you don't 'finish' even if you 100% it). When I play a game with announced DLC, I usually complete it (not 100% it), and leave all of the rest of the content for when I revisit it in a few months when the DLC hits.
The second reason is for people that want to sell their games back once they finish all of the games content. If they hold on to it "just in case" it will devalue while they wait for content that may never come. If they sell it because there has been no announcement of new content, and then a month later, some DLC comes out, now they miss out.
How is revealing (prior to launch) that you plan to support a game after its launch with extra content a bad thing? How could this ever be anything other than good? The common (unsubstantiated) fear is that game companies will only release a partially complete game, adding the rest of the content through DLC. This has never been shown to actually be the case, and if it ever were to happen then it would self correct because reviews are based on release, not DLC, and people would complain about the core game lacking content. Remember DLC/One-time-code online passes? These self corrected too. Don't try and deny yourself something amazing (like announced developer support of titles post launch) because you fear that it will be abused. If it gets abused, you vote by not buying a game that abuses it. It will self correct.
@thedevilsjester My point is this;
The perpetual defending of this ridiculous calamity called season passes is immature I could write a thesis on the reasons they are anti consumer, wrong and immoral.
Your reasons for real paying consumers to pay additional monies, to help to keep staff in work, is actually ill informed.
Release post content, please do - we all - ALL - are happy for that to continue. But please do not sell me a "season pass" without the seat.
You are defending a practice which asks for cash in return for fresh air. But its your money jack do with it what you want. The problem is, because you are happy to throw away money its actually affecting peoples gaming who aren't.
And yes games are releasing unfinished.
@themcnoisy Firstly, I never once defended the idea of a Season Pass, so I don't know who you are arguing with. Secondly you make the same mistake that the writer of this article makes. A Season Pass is a "DLC Bundle", nothing more, nothing less. Sure you CAN buy them before the DLC releases, and whether or not you should do that, well thats up to you. I am not defending that, nor have I ever defended that. But you can ALSO wait until all of the DLC is released and THEN buy the season pass which gives you a discount on all the DLC. I generally buy a Season Pass before DLC is released for developers that have done right by me, and wait to buy the Season Pass for other developers until all of the content is out. A Season Pass DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO BUY IT UP FRONT. Please stop spreading this nonsense.
"Your reasons for real paying consumers to pay additional monies, to help to keep staff in work, is actually ill informed."
As a software/game developer that has been writing software and games for nearly two decades, and a gamer for much longer than that, with many other friends and connections in the industry, I can assure you to that my reasons are not ill informed.
@thedevilsjester so what DLC are you releasing?
@NintendoFan4Lyf
During game development, movie production, writing a book, hell, just about any creative endeavor, there are a lot of plans and ideas that get scrapped because there is no time, or its outside of the budget, or it just makes it too big.
That means that there are a lot of good ideas, already thought out, that just didn't make the cut. What harm is it for a company to take a couple of these ideas, allocate a DLC budget to them, and add them after the fact? What harm is it to announce to your players that you want to add this particular content? The only "harm" is imagined. People imagine that the content was removed BECAUSE they wanted to sell it to you in pieces. Thats not actually what happens though, and everyone gets out the pitchforks when DLC is released because they think it is.
@themcnoisy I am not currently on a development team releasing DLC for a game. I do love gaming though and I love getting more content for a game I love. I would rather go back to the days of full on game expansions, than smaller DLC, but I take what I can get. Just as long as that DLC isn't a new weapon, or some costume, or some other garbage. Give me a new game mode, some new maps, a series of new quests, and I am a happy gamer.
Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that you pay for DLC that isn't even out yet.
@NintendoFan4Lyf I see, however every game, and every movie, and every form of entertainment does this. They over plan, and then trim down to what can be done within budget.
Why don't they delay, and add the content? Thats simple. Developers, artists, composers, writers, etc... are not cheap. That extra 2-3 months to add the extra content? That cost them a lot of money, and if they do that they might not break even, let alone make a profit. That doesn't even account for outside pressure from investors to release the game within a certain time frame so they can make their money back.
They are not trying to "milk you"** to buy these things, they cost them a lot of money to make, they are trying to make that money back. Its all a balance between how much it costs to make, how much you pay your workers and your investors, and how much you charge your users. Some games make huge profit and have extra head room for free DLC, some games that sell millions, make very little profit (especially ones that maintain online servers) and have to try and balance the books in other ways.
**There are shady companies (many/most free 2 play games are based entirely around milking you), but reviews bring these developers and games to light, and you can avoid them.
Companies are out to make money, and the best way they can do that is to maintain a loyal user base for future titles. Any company that fails this basic concept (and tries to milk their user base), gets called out and avoided. This doesn't happen very often because the bad PR they get for this kind of behavior can stick around for awhile and have a dramatic impact on not only the sales of that particular game, but other games by them as well. Any company that shines in this, gets rewarded. See The Witcher 3 as a great example. Lots of Free DLC, but also lots of Paid DLC (and a Season Pass) but its a great game with great developers that are not out to milk you. And yes, they also have a "Complete Edition".
@thedevilsjester that's not what we are saying, we are saying we want complete games at point of delivery. We don't want promises of extras, we want complete games! We dont mind dlc..... ahem expansion packs. But that's not happening and that is the point. We are fed up of being told dlc is coming before the games out!
@thedevilsjester sorry mate that last message was meant to be sent ages ago. Lol. I think we should have a conversation about the whole subject. Its too difficult to comment on it.
@NintendoFan4Lyf Actually extended edition movies are a pretty big thing and cost more than their non-extended edition counter parts. LOTR for example, has ~3.5 hours of extended content IN the movies (not just the content that you view after), and they filmed new scenes for it (not just cut stuff). But we are arguing in circles. We already talked about the "wait and see" and how it affects the developers being laid off.
@themcnoisy I think the trap you are falling in is that you think the games are released incomplete, and that somehow the existence of DLC is spitting in the face of an incomplete game. If the former assumption was true, then I would be absolutely on board with your sentiment; however games are very, very, rarely ever released incomplete (NMS being the poster child for that).
They are released buggy and broken, absolutely. But "incomplete" is a rarity. Not all content thought up is going to make it into the final product, you can use hacks and cheats to find all sorts of incomplete levels and mechanics in games going back to the NES era! These are not incomplete games, those are just features that had to be cut because of time and money constraints. Most of those "buggy and broken" games have had extensive internal testing but until you put it in the hands of millions of players, you cannot really tell what is going to happen. During the couples months after a game goes gold, and before its in the hands of the players (this can be more than 2 months sometimes, based on release schedules, holidays, etc...) the developers need to do something, and DLC is what they focus on. This gives the added benefit that those developers (the ones that made the game) are still getting their hands dirty in the code when/if nasty bugs pop up after release and are ready and able to fix it.
All this to say, keep an open mind, and take it on a per developer basis (don't just take a blanket stance). There are some developers that have done nothing but great by their players, and when they announce DLC for a game that hasn't even launched, you can be certain that you are going to get a great game with or without the DLC. Now if Hello Game started talking about NMS DLC, then thats a different story entirely.
(not really sure how to have a discussion about this except on the forums or post comments, but I think we are mostly on the same page here just arguing some details)
@thedevilsjester "I think the trap you are falling in is that you think the games are released incomplete."
No - I actually Know that games are incomplete. I play incomplete games all the time. FF15, Street Fighter 5, Driveclub etc. But that's not my point really as it gets lost everytime I try to write a comment, and I think I am on the same page as you and understand your point of view. I cant argue with what you are saying, but that wasn't my original point of comment as I thought you were defending season passes as thats what the article is about. I'm obviously mistaken so I apologise for that.
I like expansion packs. But only if the original game is good enough, and released a suitably fair time after the original game. (not day 1 dlc bs)
I dislike dlc announcements pre game release, it does water down the wow factor of new games and the big studios do need to take a look at how they do their own pre release marketing as its unnecessary. Leave it a few weeks then BAM - do it then.
I have no problem with season passes if it's one provided by a company that has given us good DLC in the past. If Cyberpunk 2077 has a season pass, I will buy it because CD Projekt Red has earned the benefit of the doubt. The problem is companies like Capcom which have now gone as far as locking an ending behind a season-pass paywall. It's not the season pass that is the issue. It's the company behind it. I'm not sure if there has ever been a season pass for a Mass Effect game, but I do know the DLC Bioware has provided in the past has been pretty good so I would've considered buying a season pass for Andromeda.
@themcnoisy I think you are mistaken about what incomplete means. DriveClub is quite complete and was so at launch. It was more features, tracks, and cars than most other racing games. Its online mode was broken at launch, but it was and is, complete. I put a lot of time into DriveClub.
FFXV is also a fully complete game. Ive put 60 hours into it and still have another 10-20 remaining.
I cannot speak to SFV other than I know that it lacked offline, but so many multiplayer games do these days that I dont really know how to judge that.
I think you want more than $60 can give.
@thedevilsjester
"DriveClub is quite complete and was so at launch."
Sorry dude, It wasn't complete at launch by a long stretch. I platinized this yonks ago and love it, but it wasn't complete at launch, go and read some if the initial reviews for proof. A season pass later and bing - its now complete.
"FFXV is also a fully complete game. Ive put 60 hours into it and still have another 10-20 remaining."
unfortunately massive parts of the story are missing. Literally gobbledegook during the train section. Its my goty and I've platinized this too, but its all over the place story wise. Haha season pass for the extra story da nah.
"I cannot speak to SFV other than I know that it lacked offline,"
It was complete garbage, literally a skeleton of a game. I cant even bring myself to put the disc in anymore. Maybe 2 season passes later it may be complete if we are lucky.
I have no idea why you are defending these games or even trying to argue the toss on those ones, Those 3 games, I could of chose from a ton more released incomplete. This simply wouldn't have happened 2 generations ago which is my main issue. I like Driveclub and FF15, great games - but they released incomplete. I'm not an a typical commenter who doesn't practice what I preach, or jumps on a bandwagon to prove a point. I play alot of games like you. The £100 games on the store, extra in game boosts for pre orders, season passes, Microtransactions used in a pay to win way, all that stuff boils down to game companies trying to change the way they (or rather share holders) are supported financially when the old normal way has worked fine for 30 years. Companies come and go, its a fact of life. Its not my responsibility to put food on the tables of contract workers in the game industry, I buy their game if its good enough and that's it as far as I'm concerned. As selfish as that sounds I'm pretty sure they don't give one if I do my weekly shop at Tesco either.
The list of games incomplete at launch is crazy big, MGS V, Forza 5, Titanfall, Destiny to name a few more big culprits. You could then include the likes of Mass Effect 3, with day 1 dlc. Trials whatever its called these days subheading with never ending samey dlc - COD / battlefront / battlefield with its multi mapped dlc for an exuberant price for what's actually being made. Its all nonesense, and if you don't buy the season pass you wont play the full game.
That's my issue. I dont expect more for $60 / £50 - I expect a complete game at launch.
@themcnoisy I suggest you do not buy any of these so called incomplete games. If you do then you are adding to the problem. You say you do not expect more for your £50 but you do want more you want a lot more content which you seem to not want to pay for.
@dryrain Take your suggestions elsewhere Im not a child. Your Pro drm stance is repugnant. £50 is a significant amount of cash for a game - no one should have to pay more, I'm not saying FF15 or DC aren't money well spent, I'm saying they launched incomplete.
@themcnoisy I think you are confusing incomplete games with terribly designed games. There is a fundamental difference. Incomplete indicates that they had a road map, solid plans for all of this content, and just decided to release it early without it. Incomplete does not mean that the developers forgot to add things that you feel should have been in the game from the beginning.
Having a story with a couple of (relatively minor) plot holes in it, isn't "incomplete" its just poorly written. Having a game that has fewer modes/maps/tracks/cars/weapons/etc... than you think it should have, isn't incomplete, its just poorly designed.
None of these games you have listed are incomplete, even the lack of a single player campaign in a game doesn't make it incomplete unless they said "Hey this game is going to have a single player campaign!". It doesn't make it a good game, I hate when games do that crap and I avoid them like the plague, but it doesn't make them incomplete.
I am often standing right up there on my soap box too, so I know that I probably won't sway you from your position, no matter what I say. Its the stubbornness of the soapbox, I get it, but you need to stop buying games that you feel are not worth buying. And if they are worth buying, even "incomplete", then who cares if they are "incomplete"?
@thedevilsjester " think you are confusing incomplete games with terribly designed games."
No I'm not - this is the definition of incomplete;
. Not complete; not filled up; not finished; not having all its parts, or not having them all adjusted; imperfect; defective.
A most imperfect and incomplete divine.
Whatever you have just written makes little to no sense, maps are purposefully pulled from the main game so you pay more, parts of games are pulled from the main release to make you pay more. Single player components stripped away.
I'm not talking about you and your games whatever your working on. That's great you develop stuff - I'm predominantly talking about EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc etc etc. Really huge companies with huge cashflows. This is season pass culture, buy now we will fix it later culture, money greed and shafting customers culture. That's what it is.
I dont want to bang this drum - it's why I would prefer to take the topic into a conversation or preferably have journalists with much better writing skills than me investigate the current state of play. Anything I wrote can be mis quoted or misdirected, you continue to say "I'm mistaken or misunderstanding" I'm not - its there in front of me. Slapping me in the face.
I want complete games without season passes to fix them up. That's it. I'm not alone in this, just look at any board when this subject is brought up.
@themcnoisy All of what you say is assumption. Do you know for certain that X feature/map/etc... was removed from Y game so you would have to pay for it later? Or are you afraid that it was? Where is your proof that this is the case? Every game throughout history has had content removed before it went gold, thats just the nature of game development. What you are trying to say is that there is intentional trimming for the purpose of selling you the content later. Show me the concrete evidence that this actually happens, not some outlier, but regularly enough to be a thing.
Its not a thing, you have nothing but your own unfounded fears. These are good fears, they keep you vigilant and keep companies in check, but to-date companies just simply do not do this. Sure you can find people complaining about it loudly on forums, but these are pitchfork mobs, with no real proof or evidence that its the case just their own opinion and fears.
Take your DriveClub example, were there promised (to be included in the core game) tracks, cars, or game modes that were missing from the game when it launched and then added later as paid DLC? You claim there is, which ones? Where is the statement by the developer indicating that these were to be included in the core game? We can put any of the games you listed in this example, same question. Your own personal opinion that "This game should have had more tracks/cars, oh look track and car DLC, they MUST have removed this from the game to sell me it later" is not proof.
** Not talking about games that have this as their business model, where you get the "core" game cheap, and then you can buy just the parts you want, or buy the whole game for the normal game price. Thats a separate monster.
@themcnoisy We should probably end the discussion here, like you have mentioned a couple times (its just hard to end an interesting discussion). We are not really providing anything useful any to the topic at hand though and it doesn't look like we will agree any time soon. If you care to talk to me outside of this post, feel free to PM me here or on PSN (same name)
@thedevilsjester nice one brother; chatting / arguing / discussing is always fun! Its funny as a ff15 article popped up with people saying the games incomplete In the comments. I'm completely warn out through our interjections here though haha 😆 So yeah I will keep my opinion to myself for a few days and am 100% not joining in. Good luck on your next project dj and if you play titanfall 2 we are getting a group together.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...