Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dragon Age: Origins To Get Paid DLC Expansion — On Launch Day

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the say-what-now dept.

Role Playing (Games) 241

BioWare's upcoming RPG, Dragon Age: Origins, is set to launch on November 3rd. Today they announced details about some of the downloadable content they have planned for the game. In fact, it's scheduled to become available on the same day the game launches, at a cost of $7. (The PS3 version will be slightly delayed). "Called the Warden's Keep, the DLC will add a dungeon-based quest to the game along with six new abilities, a variety of items, and a base where players can trade with merchants. It will feature a supernatural storyline set in an ancient — and possibly haunted — fortress once used as a redoubt by the Grey Wardens, the ancient order at the center of Origins' main storyline." There will be two additional bits of DLC that are available for free to people who have purchased the game new. One "adds a stone golem character to the player's party from the beginning of the game, unlocking numerous story options," and the other increases a character's defense against some attacks in-game.

cancel ×

241 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

EA rears its ugly head (3, Interesting)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678277)

Seems like EA already is taking over Biowares customer friendlyness (usually it is 2 games until the EA shit starts to boil in the companies they bought)
RIP bioware, not that I wont buy Dragon Age, but I am not very eager to buy any expansion, I probably will wait until a collectors edition with all extensions comes out in a year or so.

Re:EA rears its ugly head (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678353)

I have the same sentiment.

I will buy DragonAge for the PC for Bioware's sake and download the content EA forgot to burn on the disc from another site.

Re:EA rears its ugly head (2, Insightful)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678429)

EA weren't the first to do this.

Paradox had pay-for DLC available for their game East India Company on the day it was released.

And the Steam game 'RailWorks' (or something like that I'm at work so can't check Steam) seems to be nothing but pay-for DLC and most of it costs a significant fraction of the original game's price.

Re:EA rears its ugly head (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678649)

EA weren't the first to do this.

Paradox had pay-for DLC available for their game East India Company on the day it was released.

And the Steam game 'RailWorks' (or something like that I'm at work so can't check Steam) seems to be nothing but pay-for DLC and most of it costs a significant fraction of the original game's price.

This isn't the first EA has done this. I cant remember of the top of my head what game it was but one of their latest games to do it was with the sims 3.

Re:EA rears its ugly head (1)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679231)

The bigger concern to me isn't the for-pay DLC, but the for-free DLC that you only get with a new copy of the game. This is a blatant attempt to cripple the used game market, and violate the First Sale Doctrine [wikipedia.org] . They are purposely crippling the character of anyone who buys a used copy of the game.

Re:EA rears its ugly head (4, Insightful)

Williams091479 (1652429) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679345)

I don't see a problem with this. I agree people should be able to resell games and all but, what's wrong with companies giving people incentive to buy it new? With piracy going up, I don't blame them for wanting to encourage more people to buy the game new so they can see greater profits and success.

Re:EA rears its ugly head (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29679513)

Except this will only make pirating the game a better option than buying second hand.
The pirates will get everything, including "exclusive" content people who do it honestly will not get exclusive content and might buy the extensions (woo profits and success!).

Re:EA rears its ugly head (2, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679035)

The article specifically state that this DLC will not be in the Collectors Edition.

Re:EA rears its ugly head (4, Insightful)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679043)

A guy from Bioware had some things to say about this on Blue's News. He (obviously) was very adamant about how the content had not been removed from the game to make a quick buck. Bioware has had a dedicated team working on DLC for a long time, working in parallel with the main game team. The DLC would not have been ready early enough to pass through QA etc, there was no time to have it in the game on release day; obviously the QA process for just the expansion is faster than for the whole game -- I'd assume the criteria are more relaxed, as well, if the DLC breaks, it is optional after all. There is free DLC on launch day, as well.

That said, the obvious question is, if the people working on the dedicated DLC team had been part of the main team, wouldn't they have had the resources to include more content in the released game? In that way, it still seems like they're "cheating" customers out of content. On the other hand, while it started out controversial, DLC in general is very accepted these days, and it seems arbitrary to react differently to it simply because it's released on launch day. Should they have simply let the DLC lie on a HDD somewhere for a few weeks?

BTW, the developer (Derek French, I think) implied they founded the dedicated DLC team after very positive experiences with NWN, which let them support the game for another couple of years, and which was very well received from the community IIRC.

Re:EA rears its ugly head (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29679213)

That said, the obvious question is, if the people working on the dedicated DLC team had been part of the main team, wouldn't they have had the resources to include more content in the released game? In that way, it still seems like they're "cheating" customers out of content. On the other hand, while it started out controversial, DLC in general is very accepted these days, and it seems arbitrary to react differently to it simply because it's released on launch day. Should they have simply let the DLC lie on a HDD somewhere for a few weeks?

The argument that they'd make (and it could very well be a valid one) is that the reason they could hire a dedicated DLC team was the anticipated money they'd make off of it; unless the DLC was going to increase sales of the game itself (doubtful), or they were going to raise the cost of the game by $5 to pay for it (also doubtful), hiring an extra bunch of people to only create DLC only works if there's some anticipated money to come out of it

Re:EA rears its ugly head (2, Insightful)

thejynxed (831517) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679443)

Like the poster above you said, they have had great success with DLC via NWN. It's true: the 'Premium' modules continue to sell well for both NWN and NWN2, even though the original NWN was released years ago. Then there's the community development tools, that allow end-users to create their own modules. Bioware has official mods for NWN, NWN2, KOTOR and KOTOR2 (even though Obsidian did both KOTOR2 and NWN2).

To the other poster saying this is EA shit rearing its ugly head: Bioware did this before EA even bought them, and Dragon Age was also started well before EA bought them.

Personally, I think it's nice they have additional content available on release day, instead of attempting to tack too much on a month or two down the road. At least this way, they will get player feedback immediately on what the DLC breaks or enhances, and use this data to improve future DLC.

Re:EA rears its ugly head (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679645)

Actually, they don't continue to sell well for NWN, since Atari yanked their license a few months ago. As for NWN2... did that one piece actually do well, considering that it was a year late?

Re:EA rears its ugly head (2, Insightful)

sw33tjimmy (662009) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679499)

yeah....
1. I think folks should wait to see if the game stands up on its own before declaring a foul here.
2. That dedicated DLC team doesn't work for peanuts, I guarantee.
3. If the main team isn't working on DLC, that means other games come out quicker.
4. This DLC is obviously optional. Nobody's forcing you to buy it.

Blows my mind how quick some folks in the community will turn on one of the most influential and important dev teams.

Re:EA rears its ugly head (1)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679609)

Most of what you said was exactly the sort of thing I was thinking - if the DLC wasn't done in time for the game to go Gold then it *couldn't* be on the disk, so it's not necessarily an example of evil. However, regarding ...

Should they have simply let the DLC lie on a HDD somewhere for a few weeks?

I guess I'd have hoped that they'd have continued to work on expanding the DLC further rather than timing its release to start nickel and diming the customers the instant the game is released. If they'd kept working on it perhaps they could have made it even better (and it will probably be good, BioWare know their stuff) and released it further down the line when it looks less cynical and where people have started wishing for extra content to continue playing.

Re:EA rears its ugly head (2, Insightful)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679675)

That said, the obvious question is, if the people working on the dedicated DLC team had been part of the main team, wouldn't they have had the resources to include more content in the released game?

No. There's a certain point past which they can no longer add content to the game as shipped on disc, because they need to lock down the content for the QA process. But the artists and designers can still work on standalone DLC while the programmers concentrate on the QA process and bug fixes.

Right at launch day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678283)

You don't have to pay 7$ for this first post, it's for free !

Re:Right at launch day (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678463)

Unless you get the 2nd post you cocksucker.

Well, (3, Interesting)

DemonBeaver (1485573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678285)

they could have just raised the price of the game and stuck it in. Would make me feel less of a sucker

Re:Well, (4, Interesting)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678305)

This indeed feels like draining additional money out of the people buying the game. If they brought it out 3 months later no one would complain but this looks more like ripping off customers than anything else.
What next, basic game for full price which unlocks you the first levels and for finishing the game you have to buy at least 200 dollars of special items?
EA at its best, I am pretty sure this was not Biowares intent, but they were forced to do this by EA. This is not the Bioware I know of where the two bosses posted on Usenet (Baldurs Gate time) and talked directly to the fans.

Re:Well, (5, Funny)

DemonBeaver (1485573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678427)

Next up: Mass Effect 2 in-game gear to be sold separately. Publisher quoted: "We believed that the vendor system in the first game was very good, but in order to give the player the real experience of buying weapons from a merchant, we have created an online weapons shop which can be accessed from within the game. Players of course have the option to play through the whole game using only biotics. Think of the weapons as DLC with a bang!"

Re:Well, (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678757)

What next, basic game for full price which unlocks you the first levels and for finishing the game you have to buy at least 200 dollars of special items?

How the fuck is this even anywhere near that kind of idiocy?

Face it, if this was released in 2 months time no one would say SHIT. You people are fucking insane turning DLC into a four-letter word, if the collectors edition was $67 and included this you would be buying it up without a fucking peep. Go fuck yourselves.

Re:Well, (1)

DemonBeaver (1485573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678869)

The big difference is that we know for a fact that this was made at the same time as the full game, during its production. The point of DLC is bringing content to the people which was created later on for the game. Right now they are just selling pieces of the game.

Re:Well, (1)

Morlark (814687) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678969)

Actually, that is not necessarily true. We can reasonably assume* that this DLC was created after the game was put into content-freeze for testing and QA. It was created after the game's production, but since DLC requires a lot less post-production fiddling, it's possible for them to publish both at the same time.

* and by that, I do of course mean "that's Bioware's story and they're sticking to it". [dragonagecentral.com]

Re:Well, (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679127)

The problem with the whole "DLC" concept is the second I heard this term used I figured it would translate into "big game corp says pay full price for a piece of a game, and THEN pay us more monies for the rest!". Why? Because we PC games have had "DLC" for years in the form of mods, only nobody came up with marketspeak to try to push them, that's why.

When you look at the way the games have been going- "multiplatform" being a code word for shitty x360/PS3 port, more and more "DLC" that smells like stuff that should have been in the "real" game in the first place but was ripped out to make the extra monies, blaming piracy for everything when your DRM sucks ass and many of the games have no gameplay or are about as fun as a trip to the DMV, games the any beta tester could tell you are gonna suck but loaded to the brim with "Graphics 2.0" and "Ultraphysics" and other bling that gives you the sinking suspicion that is was designed with some Dilbert PHB checklist, it all comes down to one thing- corporate greed.

Real games take time and love. And with the exception of a few genres where the hardcore will buy every year (Hi Madden!) you can't just repackage the same bullshit with another notch or two added to the features PPT. And with a dead economy I think we can all agree that the $59+ they have been charging for new releases is pretty much a mugging, which is why so many of the corporate drones are trying to find a way to kill first sale and places like Gamestop. So it appears the next idea to "maximize our profit potential" is a death of a thousand cuts upon the consumer. "Why give him the whole game" they say, "when we can just give him a piece of it at full price, and the gouge him out of more money for the rest of the game? Hell we can make $100-$200 a game!"

You mark my words, we'll be seeing more and more games where it feels like larger and larger chunks are missing, only to have the "rest of the game" show up as expensive "extras" thanks to the marketspeak called DLC. That is why I am so glad there are still dedicating modders out there in the PC gaming community, that make add-ons because they love the game and want to see it continue. If any of you are reading this...thanks. There are so many games out there from top notch titles like Freelancer to even bargain bin titles like the Delta Force series where dedicated modders are giving us lots of new worlds to explore and levels to beat years later, all for the incredible price of $0.00 dollars.

So I truly hope this DLC phase dies in a fire. The mega game corps like EA find new and more nasty ways to screw us over every time we turn around anyway, the last thing we need is a way for them to easily sell us less game for more money, and then turn around and bend us over for what should have been in the game in the first place. So bad move EA, and this is one less customer you'll be getting for Dragon Age. Bioware, it is sad to see you go, but since you got bought by EA we really shouldn't be surprised. Hell the only bunch worse to sell to would have been Actiblizzard. So Long Bioware, and thanks for the fish.

Re:Well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29679025)

There is a collectors edition.... it is 20 USD or so extra.... It doesn't include the DLC "The Wardens Keep". To be honest I feel like canceling my pre-order of teh collectors edition and download it from TPB. It's a real moral dilemma, I love Bioware and I love their games, and I'm looking forward to Dragon Age :Origins a lot, but how much abuse am I ready to take from marketing? Should I really pay $80+ to be screwed over?

Sure, the morally correct answer is to vote with my valet and not buy the game. The problem is that I can download it for free so I don't lose anything (it could be argued that I actually get a superior product), but then I punish both the developers and the publisher for a mistake that I'm 90% sure lies at the publishers.

Re:Well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29679047)

What gets me is that people are making a big fuss over this, but nobody said a word about Bethesda chopping out the ending and a third of the main quest of Fallout 3 and selling that as DLC. This is assholish, but at least it isn't false advertising. People who bought Fallout 3 paid for a complete game that they didn't get.

Re:Well, (2, Interesting)

Deosyne (92713) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679515)

Wow, almost made it a page and a half before someone equated extra content that you would have never even noticed not being there while playing the actual full game if Bioware hadn't announced its availability to a full game that is sold in pieces. Why don't you just throw in a car analogy concerning how charging for options on new cars is going to lead to cars being sold without an engine or tires until you pay extra for them and round out this load of tripe nicely? Oh right, Bioware fucked up and gave away the fruits of their very expensive labors for free once, thereby setting up the infamous "level of expectation" that is now biting Valve in the ass, so they'd better start shitting free ponies or else they are now EEEEVIL.

Re:Well, (3, Insightful)

SirClicksalot (962033) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678419)

they could have just raised the price of the game and stuck it in. Would make me feel less of a sucker

But it still wouldn't change the fact that they are trying to charge extra for what should just be in the game from the start.
This isn't an expansion, this is just a side quest that has been ripped out of the game and is now sold separately.
If EA gets their way we'll soon be paying for our RPGs on a per quest basis.

Not that any of this will stop me from buying Dragon Age (although I don't think I ll buy any DLC).
Which is of course the main problem. Dragon Age already has a strong following of BG/bioware fans.
EA knows they can get away with this, the game will still be a guaranteed hit.

False advertising? (0)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678343)

So the real price for the full game is not the listed price but instead it's an extra $7

If they don't make this clear upfront in the game box (certainly the amazon.co.uk site says nothing about some of the game content being sold as an extra), I'm sure this breaks the rules in most countries in Europe (i.e they're selling an incomplete product) and is at least grounds for anybody that buys the game to bring it back to the store and get a full refund (which is why I never buy games online).

Re:False advertising? (3, Insightful)

will_die (586523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678411)

DLC is not required to complete or even play the game. They are extra content that adds to the game .
It is widly known that games are probably going to have exansion packs, and now a days paid for DLC, so that is not the shocker. It is that they are releasing DLC on the day of release and since time probably does not factor into when DLC is release no falso advertisment or selling an incomplete product.
Now if the cover art of the box included pictures of the DLC golem in the party they I would agree since the box is an advertisement of the product and they are showing you something that can only be seen if you purchase something not in the box.

Re:False advertising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678775)

Only bosses are required to play the game.
Everything else should be DLC

Re:False advertising? (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678489)

Actually it is an extra $15. The $7 is for additional content. The DLC that you get by buying the game "the right way" costs $15 otherwise.

First-sale-only DLC... (1)

TiredGamer (564844) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678431)

I'm guessing Gamestop and other used-game retailers will love this.

Re:First-sale-only DLC... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678557)

Anti-reselling first-sale-copy-only downloadable/scratch-code/preorder/whatever tied crap should be burned. It is anti-consumer - not because it devalues resale value (I don't care, PC games are not resold by gamestop anyway), but because it is stupid and clumsy, and you always feel like you are missing some part of the game because its exclusive this or you have to jump through hoops to get it or something.

Better way to deal with Gamestop pawnshop problem is to move to digital distribution. Bury the middleman.

For PC games, keep the dlc/code/preorder crap for retail if you insist, but give me the whole thing, nothing left out, nothing "exclusived" to some lameass retail chain as preorderbonus, at a price that is no higher than the retail box price, downloadable, on launch day, not a week later, and I will pay for games. Bonus points if it is on a good digital service (Effectively, Steam)

Don't? Then I don't pay. There is overabundance of stuff on the market anyway, so it is easy to pass on stuff that is being marketed/published by retards.

Re:First-sale-only DLC... (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678645)

I can imagine a situation like this in 500 years in a games museum:

Guide: This is the bare-bone version of the game Dragon Age: Origins, a very popular game in the beginning of the 21st century. This exhibit contains 20% of the game content from the original game.
Visitor: Why is it bare-bone, what happened to the rest?
Guide: It got lost.
Visitor: Why?
Guide: The distribution models in that dark age of information made it completely impossible to archive most kinds of software.. which is why our archives are somewhat spotty for this period.
Visitor: Woah, humans were really this primitive back then? Unbelievable..

Gamer Acronyms (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678437)

Dear Gamers you are officially like teenagers, because you use silly words that are uncomputable by normal adults.

Whats up with the acronyms that no outsider can possibly understand ?

~epSos.de

Re:Gamer Acronyms (1)

DemonBeaver (1485573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678455)

DLC = DownLoadable Content. And I take it you never served in the army, have you?

Re:Gamer Acronyms (1)

Anzya (464805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678483)

You're sooo right because it is sooo uncommon for interest groups to make up there own lingo. I mean. I can understand every word a boat owner, dog owner or medical personal uses. So this must truly only be a teenage thing.

"This message was brought to you by sarcasm and troll feeder association."

Re:Gamer Acronyms (2, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678569)

"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."

I saw the potential and just couldn't resist.

Re:Gamer Acronyms (1)

DemonBeaver (1485573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678629)

I see the potential for a new sig... may I?

Re:Gamer Acronyms (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678651)

You may!

Re:Gamer Acronyms (1)

Anzya (464805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678839)

Much better :)
Think I will steal that as well :)

Re:Gamer Acronyms (1)

pegasustonans (589396) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678903)

And here I always thought it stood for "should the French unite?"

Because if an issue isn't important enough for the French to unite about it, then you should probably STFU. Then again, maybe this barrier is too low. ;)

"Collector's edition" (2, Insightful)

neogramps (1432089) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678451)

This approach is not so different from having a normal and collector's edition of the game - there have been plenty of times in the past where the collector's edition gives you some in-game bonuses - if it was dressed up like that, rather than as additional DLC you have to buy separately, there wouldn't be such a hostile reaction. Selling it as DLC just makes Bioware look greedy; but selling it as a collector's edition makes it seem as though they're catering to hardcore fans and rewarding them with bonus content for buying the shinier box.

Re:"Collector's edition" (2, Insightful)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678535)

This approach is not so different from having a normal and collector's edition of the game - there have been plenty of times in the past where the collector's edition gives you some in-game bonuses

I disagree. The only games I know of with extra in-game stuff in the collectors edition are MMOs, and the stuff is usually pretty lousy to compensate. Most collectors edition bumfluff is stuff like maps, coins, cards, making of DVDs, etc. But I have never seen meaningful extra in-game content given away with the collectors edition of any single player adventure game, and I don't think most people would stand for it there, either.

How can something justifiably be called a 'collectors edition' or a 'special edition', if that's the only edition that contains the complete package? Or, to put it another way, how can the 'standard edition' not contain the actual game?

Re:"Collector's edition" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678763)

Bioware's own Jade Empire came with an additional playable character in the Collector's Edition. There was no option to buy the character later as DLC if you had a standard edition instead. I don't see anything but an improvement in the new game.

Re:"Collector's edition" (1)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678545)

No, it would. I was remarkably hostile to the shenanigans that Sega pulled with 'special forces' edition of Empire:Total War. Same problem, frankly. I will accept - and probably pay for - a 'collectors edition' that includes a box set of extra stuff related to the game. Y'know, T-Shirts, models, maps, guidebooks, and all kinds of stuff that don't remind me all along the line that I got to cater to their greed by paying extra for something that should have been in the 'standard' release.

Re:"Collector's edition" (4, Interesting)

Fross (83754) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678597)

So far collectors editions generally include vanity items, mild bonuses for the start of play - items that just show off that the user bought the CE, but don't have much impact on the game. Making DLC including an *area* and *new abilities* immediately splits the game into haves and have-nots.

This is less like a CE, and more like WoW when Burning crusade came out - you want to be a blood elf? Well, you can't unless you have the expansion. Want to give your character jewelcrafting? Want to go to new areas (let alone progress pass 60), you can't.

These expansions are fine, though even in WoW's case it really made second class citizens of those who didn't have the expansion. However, to do this on LAUNCH day is nothing short of a money grab.

Re:"Collector's edition" (1)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679183)

This is complete nonsense.

DragonAge is a single player game. Complaining about the extra content is like complaining your neighbour's invisible car, that you never see, hear or get into, is faster than yours because they paid for the turbo version.

Will it run on linux? (-1, Offtopic)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678459)

Will it run on linux? Otherwise, I'll pass.

Re:Will it run on linux? (2, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678921)

Thanks for being part of the problem. Linux users won't buy games, so games developers won't develop for Linux, so Linux users won't buy games, so games developers won't develop for Linux...

Maybe when Linux (all distros) has more desktop market share than a Microsoft OS which isn't even released yet [w3counter.com] they'll begin to care. Until then, please feel free to manually edit your .conf files, fiddle with wireless device "firmware" stripped out of Windows drivers, and live safe in the knowledge that you're intellectually elite compared to the rest of the Wintards (like myself) who are playing the games you can only whinge about.

Horses for courses. Get Windows or a console for gaming. Until there is a unified architecture for 3D rendering on Linux (like DirectX on Windows) you're living in a dream world.

Re:Will it run on linux? (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679103)

Thanks for being part of the problem. Linux users won't buy games, so games developers won't develop for Linux, so Linux users won't buy games, so games developers won't develop for Linux...

I buy more games than I honestly have time to play. All for them with native linux support.

Maybe when Linux (all distros) has more desktop market share than a Microsoft OS which isn't even released yet [w3counter.com] they'll begin to care. Until then, please feel free to manually edit your .conf files, fiddle with wireless device "firmware" stripped out of Windows drivers, and live safe in the knowledge that you're intellectually elite compared to the rest of the Wintards (like myself) who are playing the games you can only whinge about.

I haven't edited any .conf files for my system, nor have I fiddled with wireless devices. I havn't even installed 3rdparty drivers. I am aware there is some firmware thing going on somewhere below (as I presume there are on windows), but that is handled somewhere beneath the hood. You do come across as someone with an inferiority complex.

Horses for courses. Get Windows or a console for gaming. Until there is a unified architecture for 3D rendering on Linux (like DirectX on Windows) you're living in a dream world.

It's there, it's older than DirectX, and it's called OpenGL. And anyway, I already play games on linux, so the technical side is obviously not a problem. It is merely a matter of whether this game's maker want to exploit the linux niche or not. If they don't, fine, I'll take my money elsewhere. Capitalism at work, no?

Re:Will it run on linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29679279)

Capitalism at work, no?

Indeed - at the end of the day, there are still no noteworthy Linux games, regardless of where you take your money.

Re:Will it run on linux? (1)

eldorel (828471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679351)

There are quite a lot of fun games on linux, some are pay like defcon, others are not.

Better yet, go here> FREE LINUX GAMES THAT ARE ACTUALLY FUN!!! [rangit.com]

Either way, unless your idea of "noteworthy" is Eyecandy 3.0+ dx11 crap, try actually playing a few games before you blow them all off.

Heck if you live anywhere near new orleans, we throw lan parties regularly with nothing but free games and people keep coming back.

Re:Will it run on linux? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679545)

I've played quite a lot of them, actually... Vendetta I didn't like at all, Frets on Fire was good but buggy, Second Life isn't a game, Quake Wars isn't a game I enjoy, I *detest* turn based strategy games, and the rest listed look like they were made in 2001. That's not necessarily a bad thing; I still enjoy Total Annihilation and the first C&C games. It's just that, well, it looks tired and haggard, rough and shoddy. As fun as I'm sure they are (and I'll try any Windows ports I can find) they don't inspire me with the desire to switch. I didn't spend a grand on hardware to play a game which looks like it was developed for the N64.

Yeah, I like eye-candy, but that's just me.

Re:Will it run on linux? (1)

eldorel (828471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679617)

Ok, we can do eye candy also.

Try this site, it's listed by rating and by age.

Penguspy [penguspy.com]

Re:Will it run on linux? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679601)

Which games? I can't even get Compiz to render properly on my system (8800GTX, 2.4GHz Q6600, 4GB DDR2 RAM). If you can tell me any website anywhere on the internet that will help me get Crysis, Far Cry 2, Wolfenstein, WoW, Mirror's Edge, C&C3, and / or Prototype running on any linux distro, I'll be pretty surprised.

Linking to WINE isn't an option; I don't want to spend 4 hours "fixing" it to get a game to run. If I can't install it and play in under 30 minutes, it's not applicable.

Re:Will it run on linux? (1)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679201)

And how exactly would buying a game that doesn't run on Linux encourage developers to develop for Linux?

Re:Will it run on linux? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679563)

Best of a bad situation?

How does buying only your local provider's broadband encourage more ISPs to roll out coverage to your area? It doesn't; You make the most of what you have. Linux gamers play what they can get, I play what I want.

Re:Will it run on linux? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29679277)

than a Microsoft OS which isn't even released yet [w3counter.com]

Wow, This crap again.... I use linux. I use adblock. So does every other linux user I know personally (and thats a fairly hefty number of developers).

Adblock, my filter set includes ... http://*.w3counter.com/*

I also disable javascript for different domains than where I actually am.

So even if I went to every single site this company monitors, I wouldn't Show in a SINGLE log file.

Same story with damned near every other "metric tracking" site I've ever encountered.

Meanwhile, All you wintards run around with your damned pants around your ankles, getting viruses, tracking cookies, and whatever other stds the corporations you suck off want to give you.

Have fun. I'll continue to be a ghost, because I don't fucking care how many people use my os of choice.

Meanwhile I do buy games that run on linux. World of Goo, Uplink, Defcon, and many other great games sit on my desk and on my hard drive.

Re:Will it run on linux? (2, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678959)

The better question is, why don't coders make sure linux will run it (not, will it run on linux).?

You already know that it's going with be a game made to run on Windows. So instead of asking if they modified it so that it'll run perfectly on Linux, you should be asking why the people coding Linux don't focus on making sure Linux can run more games instead of features that no one (even the most die hard power user) uses.

It's kind of like this http://xkcd.com/619/ [xkcd.com]

And before you try to claim I'm a troll, I'm a big fan of Linux and love using it on my laptop - but my gaming system is Windows (for obvious reasons).

Re:Will it run on linux? (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679111)

The better question is, why don't coders make sure linux will run it (not, will it run on linux).?

You already know that it's going with be a game made to run on Windows. So instead of asking if they modified it so that it'll run perfectly on Linux, you should be asking why the people coding Linux don't focus on making sure Linux can run more games instead of features that no one (even the most die hard power user) uses.

It's kind of like this http://xkcd.com/619/ [xkcd.com]

And before you try to claim I'm a troll, I'm a big fan of Linux and love using it on my laptop - but my gaming system is Windows (for obvious reasons).

The short answer is: For technical reasons. And I'd never claim you were a troll, please give me some credit. I merely asked, does it run linux? I promise, I won't hate anyone if it doesn't, I just will not buy it!

On release day? Really? (2, Insightful)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678469)

I know there's a cogent argument that DLC isn't always just something that should have shipped on the disk anyway, but really? Releasing an extra quest, for extra money, on release day?

Yeah, that should have been part of the game. Sorry, but where else will it end? Before you know it companies will be releasing half finished games, and charging for 'service packs'.

I pre-ordered this badboy in a show of support after their 'No DRM' statement. Now there's part of the game I'm going to have to 'pirate' on day one if I want the full game, so already there's little point to my gesture. I might as well pirate the whole thing if I'm going to have an illegal copy on my computer anyway.

I won't cancel my pre-order for now, but I'll be watching how this pans out.

Re:On release day? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678539)

There are some early reviews on this game, and all of them indicate that the game is extraordinarily long. If you like the game, you are getting well more than your money's worth, so they clearly aren't skimping on content in order to nickel and dime you out of your money with dlc. I don't see how a game with more content than others is part of a precedent for half finished games. Anyway, IIRC Bioware has a separate team for DLC. This likely was not meant to be in the game (the six month delay making them line up rather than greed).

There is no justifiable reason to pirate the game because you hate something that has little to do with the game proper. Anyway, if its just a quest, and not a reasonable amount of content, why would you bother stealing it? If it is a reasonable amount of content, they aren't ripping anybody off at just $7. People deserve to be paid for their work, especially if you want them to keep making such in the future. Nothing good is free in the long run.

Re:On release day? Really? (1)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678599)

There are some early reviews on this game, and all of them indicate that the game is extraordinarily long. If you like the game, you are getting well more than your money's worth, so they clearly aren't skimping on content in order to nickel and dime you out of your money with dlc.

Last year one of the majors proposed charging extra for the boss fights of a game. Everything you just argued above applies to that, as well. But I think we can probably both agree that this would be a bullshit system? Well, that's how I feel about DLC, and I think that it's justifiable, if only because DLC present the thin end of just such a shitty wedge. Especially release day DLC.

There is no justifiable reason to pirate the game...

You're absolutely right. Pirating this game is wrong, and I know that. But, it's not very wrong. It's only about as wrong as deliberately adding a hidden cost, and probably a bit less wrong than holding a meeting to discuss how to shaft your customers hardest and cut down on second hand sales - which, I presume, happened.

If I wanted the moral high ground, I sure as hell wouldn't pirate the game. But I don't care so very much about the moral high ground. I'd like to do the right thing, and I'll make an effort to do the right thing, and I'll pay some money to do the right thing. That's why I pre-ordered right off the back of their 'no drm' announcement. I wanted to do the right thing, and reward someone else for doing the right thing.

But I care a whole lot less about doing the right thing by someone who has just decided to shaft me. I'm not some pristine paladin of virtue, nor am I trying to be one. Nor am I seeking to justify an act of piracy. I don't care if it's justified.

In reality, I'm playing devil's advocate. Probably I'll have a crisis of conscience, and not pirate it at all. But you know what? I probably won't pay for it either. How much I was looking forwards to this game is now officially having to go up against how little I like getting the shaft.

Re:On release day? Really? (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679141)

I do it differently: I see the release date of hte game as the start of a very expensive closed beta program. If they ever release a value edition already containing all the DLC, that will be considered the proper launch of the game by me.

Granted, there have been mission packs before but in those cases they made the game and then worked for a few months to create new content etc. They could conceivably pass off the main game as a finished game. With DLC I get the feeling that they deliberately leave out content that I have to buy separately (and things like launch-day DLC explicitly confirm it). Which would be acceptable if they lowered the price of the game itself correspondingly, which they don't do.

I don't see the point of paying for an unfinished game. I wait until the proper version is released to buy it.

Re:On release day? Really? (2, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679037)

Aren't you making a huge assumption? You're assuming the DLC was something that existed when the game finished testing and went to manufacturing. If they had waited for this DLC to be ready before sending it to testing and then production, it would simply have delayed the game.

Instead, they've been working on this DLC instead of sitting on their asses while they wait for testing to finish, production to ramp up and shipping to commence.

And again, you do -not- have to buy it. Or pirate it. You could simply ignore it!

Re:On release day? Really? (1)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679255)

Aren't you making a huge assumption? You're assuming the DLC was something that existed when the game finished testing and went to manufacturing. If they had waited for this DLC to be ready before sending it to testing and then production, it would simply have delayed the game.

Aren't you making a huge assumption? You're assuming that consumers should be billed for how a company deals with its internal organisation and release schedule. Would you be as accepting if a company went 'gold' two months into the dev cycle and charging extra for the final two years of work? No, because that's ridiculous. If it wasn't finished when they went gold, then they should pick up the tab, not their customers. That doesn't change just because they went gold two weeks or two months before they were done, not two years.

Next thing you know, (1)

baby_robots (990618) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678503)

They will start offering DLC content before the game comes out.

Re:Next thing you know, (4, Informative)

will_die (586523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678997)

EA has already done that [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Next thing you know, (2, Interesting)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679275)

Also, see Fable 2, Pub Games.

Yeah.. (2, Interesting)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678509)

I think it's pretty funny that whilst many industries are rife with the concept of the "optional accessory", it would seem that if you dare do anything such as this in gaming, you must obey an arbritrary "cooling off period" - or you're basically a satanic nazi rapist pedo money vampire in the eyes of this crowd.

Just another righteous indignation article.

Re:Yeah.. (2, Interesting)

binkzz (779594) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678617)

"Many" is relative I think.

There is no DLC for movies, books or music. Imagine having the ability to buy additional scenes to the film. Or a better camera angle. I'd be pretty outraged. Similarly for a book - buying extra character dialogs or an additional page or two of adventure.

Personally, when I buy a game, and there is still tons of DLC, I don't feel like I bought the whole game. And games are already way too expensive in my opinion.

It makes me feel like a cow.

Re:Yeah.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678691)

The examples you give of products not having the equivalent of DLC are not really applicable since it is not really possible for those products to have accessories or additions.

Movies are first released in the theatre, and cannot be added to in that setting on an individual basis. The DVD versions of movies actually often do have a special edition with additional scenes, commentaries, or even endings. They don't bundle this as a separate purchase in addition to the DVD though simply because no one would buy it (the average customer would not log in to some website to find it and purchase it), so it is not exactly like DLC.

DLC works for games because people are willing to pay for it. If they weren't willing, then it wouldn't exist. DLC equivalents don't exist for the other products you mention simply because no one has figured out a way to make it profitable.

Re:Yeah.. (2, Informative)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678945)

But there is DLC for movies and music. B Sides, remixes and new formats for music, extra scenes and behind the scenes footage and new formats for movies.

I do respect that you feel like you haven't got the full game if there is a lot of DLC, though. But really, that game has to please you enough for you to buy the DLC so whilst it is one of the many examples of bleeding a consumer, you atleast have to be fairly happy with the original product before purchasing the accessory.

Re:Yeah.. (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679173)

B-sides, remixes and new formats for music work on their own, without any other product required (granted, B-sides didn't come without any other product). In fact, apart from the now-obsolete B-sides they're usually distributed independently of albums and often made available for free. As for movies where you can pay to download estra scenes and behind-the-scenes footage: Any examples? I've never heard of that. I only know the cases where you get it for free with the movie.

Textbooks have DLC (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679013)

There is no DLC for movies, books or music.

A growing number of textbooks come with online extras available only to those who buy the book new.

Re:Textbooks have DLC (1)

binkzz (779594) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679363)

A growing number of textbooks come with online extras available only to those who buy the book new.

You are right. I should have made a clearer definition of DLC to only mean non-free DLC.

Free DLC is a good thing in my view.

Re:Textbooks have DLC (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679471)

A growing number of textbooks come with online extras available only to those who buy the book new.

You are right. I should have made a clearer definition of DLC to only mean non-free DLC.

Unless you're talking about Wikibooks featured books, the DLC provided with a textbook is non-free [freedomdefined.org] . Otherwise, people could copy the DLC when they resell the textbook.

I have an idea (2, Insightful)

dreamer.redeemer (1600257) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678517)

I have an idea... don't buy the DLC. We can call this exercise of freedom of choice in spending, hm... capital punishment, wait, no... capitalism maybe? Or we could call it a boycott, it doesn't roll off the tongue the same but the upside is that we can call not buying the game at all a mancott. Mancotts are powerful because you can use all that time saved from not gaming to build that DLCBS resistance movement. Mancotts are not to be confused with ascots, apricots, mascots, Madoffs, or men in cots, which are all powerful in various other respects for various other non-revolutionary reasons.

Re:I have an idea (2, Funny)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679193)

I am outraged by your idea! Do you want my family to die?

EA have threatened to kill everyone I know if I don't buy this DLC- and as I've replied to your post this now includes you and the people reading this post.

Redundant post of the week goes to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29679221)

Thanks for your valuable insight. I'm sure it hadn't occurred to anybody reading this article not to buy it, no doubt everybody bitching about it would have rushed out and bought this DLC on day one had you not shared with us your infinite wisdom.

Partly true (1)

Andtalath (1074376) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678533)

It seems from several sites that you in fact get these expansions, on launch date if you download the game instead of buying the CD version. Otoh, the downloaded version is decidedly more expensive.

It's about options (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678537)

Well, the Collectors Edition (or Deluxe Edition) -> http://www.impulsedriven.com/dragonagece already contains that questline, the mentioned extra party member and some extra items, so it's all about choice.

It's not like they're forcing you to buy it. In fact, they're giving you options for something that is non essential to the main story line. Collectors Edition or Vanilla Game and some DLC further down the line.

Imagine you're a bit on the fence on this game and don't want to pay for all the bells and whistles. Buy the vanilla edition, play it (heard it has something like 40 hours for the main story line, 80 if you really want to see it all), and if after that you're still craving for more, maybe some DLC is worthwhile.

Seriously, are you all still thinking of video games as finished products? Specially in a PC context? Has every MMO developer not taught you a valuable lesson? People are willing to pay for content updates, and that goes for any game, if it's good.

At least it's something that is being added (3, Interesting)

lbbros (900904) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678541)

... unlike what Namco Bandai does on PS3/360, where the "DLC" is actually on the disc the moment you buy it, and you pay for a key to enable it...

RE5 (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679253)

Versus mode in RE5 was also like this.

Re:RE5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29679681)

This is a common misconception. Look it up.

Is This Different From Neverwinter Nghts 1? (2, Insightful)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678605)

I bought Neverwinter Nights years ago and still play it to this day.

One of the reasons I still play it is because they released additonal content (way after the game was released). I didn't mind paying for additional modules because a lot of work went into it and extended the life of the game.

On the other hand - The DLC for Dragon Age seems to "enhance"/"influence" the gameplay of the main game.
Which to be fair is a bit naughty - to get the "full experience" of the game you have to buy an additional module!

If they released the DLC in say a few months later - maybe the reaction would not be so negative.

As far as I am aware there is no Linux version of Dragon Age - so I will not be buying it. The other reason I still play Neverwinter Nights is because it was well ported to Linux and is also the reason I did not buy the sequel.

Re:Is This Different From Neverwinter Nghts 1? (5, Insightful)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678825)

The difference is that, as you mentioned,

If they released the DLC in say a few months later - maybe the reaction would not be so negative.

By releasing modules for NWN months down the road, it implies that Bioware devs spent time and effort, after the game was initially released, into improving the product and giving players more content.

With this and other recent games, releasing DLC near or even on release day implies some executive went "Okay guys, strip out 5% of the game's content, and put it online for $10 instead."

I would wait for the Collectors Edition or GOTY (2, Insightful)

BlkRb0t (1610449) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678639)

I would rather wait for a year or two and get the Collectors Edition or the GOTY which would include all the expansions/DLC with patches applied. And I would save a lot on it too. The upcoming Fallout 3 GOTY Edition is an example.

Barbie business model (1)

omi5cron (1455851) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678673)

seems they are using the Barbie business model. a basic price for the doll and a few accessories. then make available for extra charge all kinds of cool add-on items/materials. pretty soon the Barbie-buyer has sunk 10 times or more of the original doll price into more stuff. hell, they could spend 100 times as much, i think.this is the "nickel and dime" approach.games producers are slowly moving this way for added revenue. you don't need the extra DLC to run through the game, but many will buy it to add to their experience. for myself, i don't care to spend for the extra stuff. the game should stand alone as playable.

I just hope it's on Steam so I can play it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29678739)

I don't buy games in boxes - waste of resources and extra $ for stuff I don't want. Haven't used D2D would rather just stick with 1 company.

Re:I just hope it's on Steam so I can play it! (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678817)

It doesn't appear to be.

Steam has it's issues, true... but I find it a fair tradeoff to avoid bullshit like SecuROM that I would otherwise be dealing with, should I buy a real disc or from D2D etc.

Re:I just hope it's on Steam so I can play it! (2, Informative)

will_die (586523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679723)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Alot of games on steam come with securom and other copy protection methods.
Such games include: bioshock, fallout 3 and Crysis Warhead.
However EA has released patchs for some of thier games that remove Securom from the steam version.
Also you can also find games with TAGES on steam.

regarding a Collectors edition (1)

]ix[ (32472) | more than 4 years ago | (#29678909)

It seems that at least here in Sweden there will be a collectors edition available on launch day. It contains several extras usable in game, but not wardens keep. It is also priced at 250 SEK (~40 USD) above the retail version.

Oh! I have an idea (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679287)

Why not just charge a monthly fee to play a stand-alone, single-player game? Simply paying a lump sum at the beginning and playing from there is soooooo lame!

Sheesh. All this means is that I'll just skip buying on launch day and wait for the collector's edition with all DLC to come down to $15 used. Brilliant move, brainiacs.

Re:Oh! I have an idea (1)

skrolle2 (844387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679419)

The point is that you won't be able to get the DLC if you buy a used copy, you would have to buy a new copy, or you have to buy the DLC separately.

It's a move against the second hand market. (2, Insightful)

skrolle2 (844387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679407)

The point of this is not to combat piracy or to increase the price of the game, the point is to discourage people from buying it second-hand. The first owner will get two DLC pieces for free, but if you buy your copy used, you will not receive those DLC pieces, you have to buy them from EA, on top of paying for your used copy.

The proper way of looking at it is that the two free DLC pieces should be included in the full game, but that they figured out a way of robbing second-hand buyers of it.

I can see why publishers want to get money from the second-hand market, but doing that at the expense of their customers is incredibly annoying.

Whether this is so bad depends on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29679429)

Whether the expansion is tightly integrated with the main storyline, or not.

It's one thing when the expansion is like a mini-standalone game, much like the several expansions of Guild Wars. Yes, you still get more overall value by buying all the set, but you can have a complete game experience with just one package, as long as you are happy with the classes and theme that only that package includes.

It's anothing thing in a case such as TES 4 Oblivion, where numerous DLCs came out later, but all added minor story addons IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOODY STORYLINE. Well guess what, after I finished the game last year which took me over 80 hours as I like being thorough and exploring everything), they offer about extra 10-20 hours of gameplay, to fully enjoy which I will need to replay the whole 80 hour campaign again. Which may be fine for those that want to try out another class or something, but for me one epic playthrough was enough, and I wasn't willing to play it all over just for the occasional extra story subplot, hence I didn't buy any of the DLC or the Shivering Isles expansion.

My point? If your expansion is so tightknit with the main storyline that you can't appreciate it without playing though the whole storyline again, you might as well release it on day one, as I'd much rather be able to enjoy it without having to play the game again a year after I beat it. Yes, it's better yet if you just raised the game price by $7 and have just one edition, but I guess you figured out there's always gotta be that scrooge to whom $7 is more important than the 40-80 hours of his time he'll spend playing the game to begin with, so might as well make it more enjoyable.

The solution to EA's "problem" (1)

bobetov (448774) | more than 4 years ago | (#29679697)

It's long been known that the price of a game is fixed - that is, that the amount you can charge for a boxed game on a shelf has a very definite (and mostly arbitrary) price point.

What we're starting to see is publishers trying to sneak past that price point with tricks like this. And we'll see it more and more. Single-player games don't generate a revenue stream, so you've been forced to hit the customer all up front for whatever you hope to recoup from your new game. It's just too tempting to try and spread that cost out a bit and grab some more money.

Thank god for the indie scene. I can't imagine paying $80, $90 dollars for a game.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>