"It will cost you around $870 to get Mass Effect 3's DLC"

[kane_magus]

I doubt it will actually be this ridiculously expensive to buy all the various DLCrap for Mass Effect 3, especially if one waits until it becomes stand-alone on LIVE or PSN and is no longer tied to some lame accessory like a vastly overpriced mousepad or whatever. Even so, for me, a price tag at even a tenth of that retarded amount is still far, far too high for DLCrap like this, especially considering that almost all of it seems to be useless rubbish like an extra weapon or armor or whatever anyway, something that I'd never be buying in the first place, myself.

(EDIT)

Then again... maybe not.

The author of the article says this in the comments about that "Collector Assault Rifle" thing:

"The multiplayer Collector's Rifle 'powers-up' the more you buy -- so EA has effectively created an incentive for people to buy multiple products."

If he's correct there, then what a load of horse. It's not even just horseshit. It's the entire horse.

Okay, I apologize. That's an insult to horses.

(/EDIT)

(EDIT 2)

And a lot of the other comments are all "wah, it's not so bad" or "I don't see why anyone's complaining about this" or "this is just a sensationalist article to make EA/BioWare look unnecessarily evil" or "none of this stuff is required and can just be unlocked by playing the game so what's so bad about it" or "this just affects multiplayer so it's not a big deal" or other such tiresome fanboy nonsense.

Dammit, self, you need to stop reading the asinine comments on Desucktoid, seriously. Someday, you'll learn maybe. Just stop.

(/EDIT 2)

Comments

[rabbitucker.livejournal.com]

You know, of all the lame excuses, I think that "You can just unlock it anyway" is the one that actually has some merit. You aren't being denied access to the goods just because you don't pony up money. (To me, it's more satisfying to unlock bonuses anyway.)

I figure a company has the right to milk anyone who is willing to pay money for impatience, greed, hubris, entitlement, or other character flaws.

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

Well... I guess you're right. If some people really do want to pay $654.92 for a bunch of mostly useless swag in order to fully power up that Collector Assault Rifle thing, rather than spending the absolute minimum of $24.99 for the artbook in order to merely unlock it once and then just playing the game, they're perfectly free to do so. I guess it could be considered a very hefty "laziness tax" added onto the final price of the game.

[owsf2000.livejournal.com]

Honestly I wouldn't even accept them milking people for such things. As when a company realises it's accepted to do so, they'll start twisting some mechanics around to make paying that extra money to get those things unlocked preferable than the insane amount of time and skill they'll fix it to need to unlock normally.

Consider that there are some games out there that force you to literally grind for weeks to afford some unlocks by playing the game normally even now. OR. You can buy that DLC that doubles and/or triples the rewards for battles fought to help you actually play and beat the game before retirement.

Any modest amount of beta testing would have told those developers of these games that the rewards offered were way too low for most players. Instead of fixing the game proper, their solution was to milk the customer.

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

I think it's still pretty insulting when the thing being unlocked is actually fairly easy to achieve through normal gameplay, like that damned Dog Potion DLC in Fable 3 that maxes out the dog's stats. It's like, how lazy do you have to be?

But yeah, I do think it will be even worse ifwhen the games are specifically designed to be nigh impossible to play for anyone but the hardest of the hardcore, more or less forcing you to buy the DLC to avoid having to grind for weeks.

But in this Mass Effect 3 thing, it's even worse than all that. In this case, you are essentially being allowed to pay to win at the multiplayer. You're automatically going to be better off than anyone who hasn't bought the DLC (or spent the required time to level up the gun in the game... after buying at least one piece of DLC in order to unlock it initially), which I think is pretty disgraceful that EA/BioWare is even making this possible at all, let alone charging so much for it.

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

Or, on the other hand, if buying and powering up this Collector Assault Rifle thing actually doesn't make you significantly better than people who don't... well, in that case, what the hell would the point even be at all?

[owsf2000.livejournal.com]

The way I see it, they're going to see exactly how shortlived their multiplayer can be. You're going to have the pricks that bought all that shit to max out their rifle so they can pwn everyone else, and you'll have probably the majority that won't have 800+ bucks to spend on all that useless crap who will quickly be turned off from playing the multiplayer aspect altogether.

If the maxed out collectors rifle isn't some super weapon, you're going to find the people who DID spend 800+ dollars realizing how they were ripped off if they do stand a chance of being pwned by someone who only bought the base game.

Unless the gamer's ability to bend over surprises us yet again, this will end badly for Bioware in the PR department if nothing else.