I don't get it.

Sort've bubbles down to Some wordplay and Extra cash scamming.

LIke say.. you make a COmic about this long Story taht is Increabily Gripping and makes people wanna read it.

It's 3 Books long.

You get to the third book, and it turns out the Book it's self didn't explain or help any with plot holes and missing information from the previous two Books.

Oh the SAME day you set out the Third book, you release a mini manuel that explains 'MOst' the holes in the Third book and tell your 'Fanatics' or 'Hardcore fans' that you made it as a Way to inspire them to Buy the Third book even though you didn't need to.

Fans find that several areas in the book there are evidences of pages having been Physically 'Ripped' out and the missing pages in the Manuel match the Ripped PAtterns, and your claimming it off as a special printing effect to make the books look cooler together.

Or something like that...

Hm. Okay that makes a little more sense.

Yeah it's... Sort've how You wanna look at it... Your already paying a high price for the Last Harry Potter Book, just to find that It doesn't tell you a damned thing about how the First book's events make up what happens in the last one.. It just 'Ends' everything, and gives you a 'Thanks for Playing' a the end...

ANd if you want, Spend another 10 Bucks on the rest of the Book that We took out cause only someone that read the First to Last book cares about it. :D

That sounds too complicated to be worth the effort.

Unless you're scamming someone for cash. In which case what's a little abject misdirection?

That's what The Repost is saying about ME3 with the First Day DLC.

It was a 'GOOD' idea but it's set up means if you DIDN'T download it BEFORE popping the game in and starting a play file, You have to make a Second one to even get some truth out of this CHARI that will NEVER join your crew UNLESS you played THAT DLC FIRST. and there's shit loads of Spoiler vids and the liek already about how the ending sucked... So I just wonder how many people are 'Suffering' through the game again caue that guy wasn't on team...

It's an opinion, that's to be sure.

He gets it wrong in that Bioware won't learn or care from this. People will buy the game, and people will buy the more-profitable DLC.

The internet will swarm with disgruntled people (just like when anything changes or costs more than expected) and the big developer won't care.

If you were the type to buy the game day 1, then unless day 1 DLC stops you buying it, there's no visible effect of your unrest.

Me? I haven't played any of them. But I would be pissed to the point of probably not buying it. At least, not until it's second-hand buyable or cracked and DL-able.

The author summary:
I didn't like the idea of it, but I bought it anyway and still enjoyed the game.

I still don't get why people are so angry about the first day dlc. I mean the game is still a good game worth the 60 dollar price tag with or without the dlc.

Because regardless people have found evidence to suggest that it was a crucial part of the game during development and they removed the key piece that people will efinately want from the game to make more money.

I could care less, i dont like mass effect. I do, however, care about a company breaking thier game into pieces for more money.

Didn't know about it being that crucial, but yeah just like you I'm not much of a ME fan any way.

Apparently it is. I personally wouldnt know, but theres been some evidence to point to it being that way.

Think it's cause even after buying a Game for 60+ Bucks they have to pay another 10 to get more of the Story that was planned on Disc till alst minute or something...

So your paying 70 Bucks for a 40 Dollar game Since apperently the Ending isn't worth it, and you can skip having a Charater that was planned to actually Explain everything not even being remotly accessable or probly not even mentioned in the storyline Till you pony up another 10 bucks.

Yeah that does sound sound like something to be pissed about when you put it that way.

Yeah, Honestly it was Bad enough to ahve that, then With some wordplay they Openly slap the Fans in the face by saying they'd be the only ones intrested in SPending the 70+ On the game... And.. shooting theseselves in the foot cause then it means anyone that doesn't like the game is only paying 60 Bucks for a semi complete game that has been openly stated to not even finish a storyline it was built on.

There was no plan to include From Ashes in the core game experience. From Ashes was built from the ground up with the plan to be DLC. What was found in the core game was placeholder code. Useless and otherwise ignored in the context of the core game, but ready for seamless integration once the DLC was added.

Soooooo... Just like any other bit of DLC that is possibly made to play co-inside witht he game instead of the Thigns like with Gears 2 DLC that was a Hidden bit of 'HOw did DOm and Marcus Get from point A to B' thing that had to be sepratily selected from the Main menu instead of actually belnding in as an actual Chapater in the game's story that changed nothing.

From Ashes Apperently changes a good chucnk of the storyline (If it even changes 10% since it is taken place Before the Main story goes and adds a key figure to the game It's too much of a Simple Slip in) Then it soudns more like they were possibly even at the last minute putting it in as actual On Disk infomation and just either didn't have time, Wanted to do this, or they Actually in some spot wanted to NOT even have this happen and Tangle into the story to force some more Repay value. It's not so much the DLC that is a problem, it, To me, Is more along the lines of maybe it's to the fact that they didn't even announce that it would be included with Collector's Edition... As in, 'If you don't buy the Collectors Edition, Common sense means it's still available for you to buy incase there's some coding glitch that means your unavailable to Talk with them on Multiplayer' Deal.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kpTvm6CYA

:D ... yay!

Hahaha what. This is nothing compared to the shit CAPitalist COMmunism is pulling.

One mission versus half the game's content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEMu.....layer_embedded I agree!

I haven't seen people this pissed off at a crap ending since LOST's finale.

You know,, I'm sick of this Day One DLC whining. I got a good solution for people - don't buy it. Don't like it? Simple as that. You feel that it's unfair/stupid/short-sighted/making up for a mistake? Let me play for you the world's smallest violin. It's. A. Game. Do with it as you will, but wait for something substancial to complain about instead of knit-picking.

I miss the days when people actually played games to ENJOY them...

You know, I'm sick of this whining about people whining about Day One DLC. I got a good solution for people - don't complain. Don't like it? Simple as that.

The problem is that games aren't being shipped as a finished product. It's like you go to buy a "fully furnished car". Oh wait, you need to buy the engine separately.

Yeah, that's the complaint. Now, show me the proof? What if the developers just wanted that little something extra? It was obviously finished pretty damn close to the release of the product, so I'll assume that if nothing else they could have delayed the release a bit. If the DLC is not required for you to beat the damn game then why complain? If it came out too close for your tastes, then beat the game first - THEN download the DLC. That way you'll at least get the illusion.

I mean seriously, what if the developers are being honest, and they just want to throw something extra out? Gamers don't think to themselves "I'd rather let a greedy person go unpunished than punish someone who is innocent" - they're spoiled and say "I want what I want as I want it and if I get anything less there will be hell to pay." What happened to taking the good with the bad? Ya know what, while we're at it, why not eliminate DLC? You get what you get at release. Once you beat it, don't expect new stuff, sell it and be done with it. Honestly, at this point, that would be only compromise that would make people who complain about this stuff happy.

That being said, if the game CAN be enjoyed before the DLC, then I say enjoy it instead of looking for reasons to be upset.

Given Bioware's track record for sequels, and the fact they're owned by EA, they actually don't have consumers best interests in mind. In fact, few companies actually do.

It doesn't matter how good of a title they make, fanboys are going to inherently be drawn to it because HOLY SHIT THE EPIKE ENDING TO MASS EFFECT. They're going to buy the game, and the DLC, and support a shallow business practice where you simply end up paying more for less, which will lead to another video game crash.

Hell, it's not like they're plagarizing anyone to make their games, either.

u forgot https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ruyenlpp.....1361231014.jpg

Oh yeah! I saw that, but didn't even think they'd be combined into one image.

But, at least a big name like Forbes is objectively looking into why people are hating it, for valid reasons.

I'll give you the one about the lady, but I think the moon should be given the option of being a mere coincidence - after all, lots of things have been put infront of the moon for dramatic effect. Surely some of them are bound to be done so more than once? :P

It's not so much that they referenced it or even did something in a similar pose. No, they copied it almost exactly.

Once more, I'll give you the lady photo but the moon is a different story. The moon image may look exactly the same to someone who doesn't know anything about how art works, but that's actually a common composition - dramatic discentering, an assymetrical view (the tree standing out) with a dramatic contrast of colors. That one I think you should at least throw up for potential as mere coincidence.

Really, the only thing about the moon image I submit to being copying is that the tree and moon are on the same locations. They're not even shaped the same. One clearly has more trees. If you want to knit-pick, then there isn't one person in the video game industry - neigh, the WORLD - that hasn't copied something.

Their track record is smeared by people who want a complete repeat of what they just played. They also DON'T want the same thing. Look at a recurring theme among complainers. "Not like the first" "Doesn't play like the first." I thought Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 2 were awesome and I played at least Dragon Age: Origins and Awakening. Some elements are different, but these people ignore all the good stuff of the sequels and focus on the bad. Dragon Age 2 was more fast paced and actiony, and magic looked less like someone used the spray tool from photoshop. I do still love Origins, but I love 2 as well.

Thing is, gamers will *NEVER* be happy. They don't even know what they want. If Sonic the Hedgehog is any example, even when they're given just what they want they will find reasons why it's a disappointment. The solution? Stop making DLC. Stop making patches. Make the full game at start and let them know there will be no DLC - what they get is what they get.

This will give gamers an easier time analysing this content so that when the sequel comes out they'll have an easier time complaining about why it can't live up to the previous game. :P That's all they're playing them for anyway, why not make it simpler?

Do you have any idea how self-entitled you sound in this?

Let's take your first statement. Implying BioWare doesn't have the consumers best interests in mind, then going on and saying few companies do.

Think about that long and hard.

Now, onto your next statement:

It absolutely matters how good a title is when it's made. If it's not a good title, there won't be any fans. There won't be people eager to see how the story ends. BioWare's made some pretty bad DLC in the past for Mass Effect. They've learned from their mistakes, taken constructive fan feedback to heart, and significantly improved.

You're not just mistaken when you say consumers are paying more for less, you're flat out wrong. This is not more-for-less, this is more-for-more.

And as for the accusation of plagiarism, get a grip. It's a single still image, freely available on the internet for any and all to use. It's not as if the absence of the picture somehow makes the game unwinnable.

"You're not just mistaken when you say consumers are paying more for less, you're flat out wrong."

Hit a nerve, did I? Is that why I can purchase a game online for say, $10, get 400 hours of entertainment out of it, and then purchase a AAA title for $60+ and only get a few short playthroughs? Alright then.

Games are a business. They are designed to sell, not make people happy. Why extend the experience when you could sell it short, forcing your fanbase to buy the next sequel, or "fix it" with DLC? This is a business model that is adopted by both EA and Activision, and frankly, they're probably the richest publishers, and also the greediest. This model is also adopted by Apple, but in a less sinister form.

"It's a single still image, freely available on the internet for any and all to use."

Well gee, by that logic, so is this! It's on the internet, and I surely can use it too, right? If you say yes, then that means you don't understand copyright, and if you disagree, then you're being a hypocrite, because the plagiarized image came from DA, which is actually NOT free to use. I like how you claim the picture is the "intellectual property" of yourself and another. I mean, it's a good thing Ubisoft doesn't actually enforce their copyright claims on art sites, otherwise you'd be in a bit of hot water.

DANJEN PAUL FOR 2012

No, you did not 'hit a nerve.' The arrogance in your statement attempts to conceal your ignorance in such matters. And while you may fool someone who's not very knowledgable on the subject matter, you do not fool me. A magician performing for an audience makes his assistant disappear, much to their marvel, all the while professing 'Magic! Magic!' but he would never fool his fellows, whom are all no doubt aware of the trapdoor in the stage.

Next, you go on to generalize about 400 hours ef entertainment from a $10 game, but only a few playthroughs out of a AAA $60 game. You claim that because of this difference--and this difference alone-- Game A is better than Game B. You do not factor in individual taste at all, which in such a comparison is vital. Not to mention, it renders your argument moot. The $10 game may appeal to you, and good for you if it does! But it may not appeal to me. I may only get 4 hours of enjoyment out of it. I may think of it very negatively. Is my opinion more or less right than yours? No, it is neither, because that is a matter of personal taste. The more people whose personal tastes are piqued by your product, the better your product is. Having said that, I know of no $10 games that provided ME with 400 hours of entertainment, or anyone else for that matter, leading me to believe you're making it up.

You are right when you say Games are a business and are designed to sell, but you could not be more wrong when you say they are not there to make people happy, for that is EXACTLY what they're there to do. BioWare, EA, and Activision are all in the business of entertainment, the business of making people happy. They do this as many entertainers do, by appealing to an interest that you, the customer, have but are otherwise unable to produce for yourself.

It should come as no surprise that you are also wrong when you talk about selling the experience short and forcing the fanbase to buy the next sequel or fix it with DLC. You speak as if this is a business practice brand new in the Entertainment industry. If this upsets you, then you must also be upset at the breaking up of stories into volumes, trilogies, chronicles, and/or and chapters rather than being sold as one complete package. Nevermind that it's a practice that has been in use for decades and possibly even centuries, no, it's only a problem NOW because you have a personal bone-to-pick with EA. In fact... Do you feel the same way about Harry Potter or Twilight breaking up their most recent features into two parts each? Is THAT not a damnable business practice, too?

To backtrack for context, you claim that games are no longer being sold as a finished product. You liken it to purchasing a fully furnished car, but are then hosed by the dealer after you discover the car has no engine under the hood. This is a poor analogy, because a car needs an engine to function, but Mass Effect 3 does not need the From Ashes DLC to function. It would have been more accurate to liken Mass Effect 3 to a functioning car, and the From Ashes DLC as the optional leather interior. Unnecessary for the function, but it is certainly a nicer experience if you have it.



Lastly, about the picture. Your accusation of plagiarism is weak because the context of where the picture is found greatly overshadows the picture itself. People are not playing and beating Mass Effect 3 so they can have the benefit of viewing a picture they could easily find on Google by typing 'Winter Space' in the search bar. Furthermore, you have no idea what was involved in getting that picture. Maybe BioWare contacted the artist, if they managed to find out who it is, and compensated themma small sum for using the picture. Maybe the picture is public domain. Some people actually do create works of art for the public domain, and not for profit. Given that there is no signature on the picture, I am led to believe this is the case, and as such, no plagiarism has taken place.

This differs greatly from my picture, which is NOT public domain. It is freely available for all to see, but not to use. Searching Google for 'Assassins Creed Skunk' will not even turn up that picture amidst the vast search results. The PICTURE is my intellectual property, though Assassins Creed itself is not. Though were it to find its way into the end credits of Assassins Creed 3, I would be very amused.

I only sound arrogant in my arguments, simply because I am responding in kind to your own. Specifically, this would be your comment "let's take your first statement". That just reeks of arrogance. In fact, attacking my tone sounds somewhat familiar. Hell, you've also gone full ad hominem when you claim I am not an expert, despite having valid points.

In any case, let me provide another analogy for the DLC debate. Pretend you go to a restaurant and order a steak with a side of potatoes. Delicious. Except, you only get half of your steak and have to pay twice as much for the other half. Also, you're not allowed to eat the potatoes, which were on the plate already, without again paying more. If you choose to eat them anyways, you are banned from the restaurant.

"But you're not a chef! You don't know what you're talking about!" True. But that doesn't mean I don't know a scam when I see it. If you feed me shit, I'll call you on it. If you paid someone like Narse $100 for a commission and he gave you a stick figure drawing, then you'd call bullshit on that too.

Anyways, 400 hours for $10 may have been a little generous. As you can see, I've sunk only 300 hours into Terraria, but keep in mind I purchased it for a mere $5, which actually means I've gotten EVEN MORE out of it than I said.

Other entertainment mediums have been making episodic content, which is fine. A key point you've missed is that video games are not like other entertainment mediums - they're interactive. Movies and books don't even come close to what games are. Hell, irregardless of the medium, how would you like it if your favorite book or movie was only a third as long as it is now, but you still paid full price for it, and to get the other missing chapters, you would have to pay a premium for it? Food for thought.

And back to the plagiarism issue, even if it weren't a stolen image, even if they had the artist's permission, it looks horrendously unprofessional to use assets that clutter Google's front page, before your game came out. The whole game reeks of poor programming and execution, and I would urge you to watch this review if you haven't, to see what I am talking about.

"Let's take your first statement" serves to give context to where I am going to argue against your statement. There is zero arrogance in it.

I'm attacking your tone because you do not have valid points. At best, you have a biased conjecture and seek to nitpick every teeny tiny little flaw you perceive, falsely claiming them to be smoking guns proving your points.

I see your restaurant analogy, but once again your argument is flawed. One goes to a restaurant and orders the 'Effecte du Masse' entrée of steak and potatoes, fine. There are three levels of the entrée the customer can order:
The 4 oz meal, which is the steak and potatoes, (and in the context of analogy, the basic Mass Effect 3)
The 6 oz meal, which is a bigger steak plus potatoes (Mass Effect 3 + DLC)
And the 6 oz meal, plus dessert. ( Mass Effect 3 collector's edition)

My argument hinges on the principle that Mass Effect 3 is by itself a basic game, and everything else is added onto it at the discretion of the customer by his/her buying power. In contrast, your argument hinges on the opposite principle; that the complete game is one great big package, and that bits and pieces of it are stripped away before launch only to be re-sold to the customer as seperate packages, if they want it.

The difference between our two opinions is that, in the eyes of the gaming community, my example is considered acceptable as a business practice, and yours is not. So which of these business practices was used? It's hard to say one way or the other. Certainly the existence of From Ashes related content found existing in the core game comes off as suspicious, but then, it's difficult to discount the fact that From Ashes is a 626 megabyte download for those that own the Xbox version. To me, that's pretty cut-and-dry that the content was not sitting on the disk waiting for an authorization to unlock it. By comparison, the Argus M-55 assault rifle was a 108 kilobyte download. THAT sounds like an unlock, but that's just one in-game weapon. That's not something major, like a squadmate.

You're claiming fraud where none actually exists. I don't know where you're getting this from, and speculation won't do me any good.

As for Terraria, good on you for getting such good value for your money spent. I had a look at it, and I can tell you I would probably not spend more than 5 minutes playing that game. But as I said before, that is a matter of personal taste. And as such a matter, I believe Mass Effect 3 is infinitely better game than Terraria, because of how it appeals to me. Because this is a matter of personal taste, I cannot argue that you are wrong. To even attempt is futile.

And now, concerning episodic content. What does being interactive have to do with episodic content? The point I was trying to make is that episodic content exists in most means of entertainment nowadays. Games are no different. Your question 'How would I like it if...' has no bearing because it already IS like it. The Fellowship Of The Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return Of The King all combine to make the story of The Lord Of The Rings. The Matrix is one story broken up into 3 episodes. Star Wars is one story broken up into 6 episodes. Underworld is one story broken up into 4 episodes. And not only are these episodic in nature, but there are also Director's Cut versions of some of them. The Lord Of The Rings, for example. After all three movies were released on DVD, not long after were the Super Mega Ultra Uncut editions released containing most--if not all--extra footage that ended up on the cutting room floor. Just like with video games, those cut scenes are not essential to the movies as they were shown in theater and in the standard DVD editions, and were removed to fit within time constraints. But unlike video games, if you want that extra footage, you have to buy the whole damn thing all over again at a much larger price. at least with video games, it's just a small premium to pay.

Same. Damn. Thing. The fa that the game is interactive and the movie is not is irrelevant.

I won't speak to the plagiarism issue, it's not important. I also will not watch that review until I have completed the game 3 times, for all my Shepards. No risk of spoilers.

Proof? Easy...CAPCOM. Just look at how many SF4 and SF2 releases there were...and they're all basically the exact same versions respectively.

SF4
Super SF4
Super SF4 Arcade Edition, for example.

Not talking about Capcom. I knew they were greedy. 'Swhy that one big guy who made Megaman left.

I'm ashamed to call myself a gamer today -.- Old people and young kids. Us gamers in the middle grew up with old and new consoles. Old people grew up with old consoles. Young kids are growing up with new.


I'm ashamed to call myself a gamer today. And that's saying something. Gamers today all find something to hate and rant about. Nothing EVER pleases the old guys and nothing ever pleases the young kids.

If you don't wanna play it. Look it up on youtube. Read about it. DLC is OPTIONAL. Why does every gamer today have a compulsive spending issue? The DLC is optional. If you don't want it then shut up and don't buy it, instead of buying it and complaining you wasted money.

If I don't buy DLC, which I do a lot, then I go to youtube or something and watch a walkthrough on it. Simple and easy as that.

The thing about this particular DLC is it's importance to the lore of the game.

A friend of mine said it best: "Not having 'From Ashes' in ME3 is like if you watched/read Lord of the Rings and they had cut out all explanation as to why Bilbo had the ring in the first place" sure, it would still work but it would leave you wondering.

What Bioware (or rather EA) is doing is selling people DVDs of LotR with those bits cut out and then selling the cut material to the customers for $10 extra.
Basically because the know they can. If you're enough of a fan for the games you'll want to know this bit of in game history.

I hope I make sense.

I honestly don't care about Mass Effect. And I could care less if it's "important". Yes he's important because his race plays a big role but aren't there novels about this stuff?

"I'm ashamed to call myself a gamer today."

"I honestly don't care about Mass Effect."

My brain... Is full of fuck.

"The $10 game may appeal to you, and good for you if it does! But it may not appeal to me."

Eating your own words, I see.

Uhhh... What are you talking about?

I said that, yes, but it has no relevance in this context whatsoever.

So... I'm doing nothing of the sort.

It's not really about the game itself at this point. It's the problem with DLC in general now. Sure you might not like mass effect, but most sports games now have it where if you don't buy it new, you have to pay 10 dollars to get online. and some critical characters in fighting games are left out and you have to pay for them (SF X Tekken)

This is the point where I somewhat agree. They should have delayed the game until November at least. That way all the characters could be done and added into the game. Right now some of those characters aren't ready but if they delayed they would be.

10 Dollars to get online is reasonable. Companies are losing money due to people buying used games which is also more apparent in PS3 titles due to them being bluray and heavily scratch resistant. Why buy new when you can get used with the exact same quality right? People are figuring that out and companies lose money because of that. So they needed a way to still make money off of used titles.

They think that because Mass Effect has a fanbase, that they will buy anything with the "Mass Effect" label, no matter how stupidly overpriced or poor quality it is.

Just like what happened with Star Wars, another franchise utterly destroyed by greed.

I still disagree.

Give it a year or so and you'll see the light

No, no I don't think so.

It's times like these that I look fondly back on consoles like the snes, genesis, playstation, dreamcast, etc. and am thankful that most of their games weren't made with an internet connection in mind and therefore had to be made as an entire package itself. "Expansion packs" were still just a thing pc gamers had. When you bought a PS2 game, you bought it. You have the whole thing, it's yours, there's no extra hidden stuff you have to unlock with your money. Being good at the game, maybe, but earning something with skill is more satisfying anyway.

I fully agree with it in the sense that "DLC can be a great asset" to a game if it fits in with the story, or is just for fun, like a new mode, but if a DLC is out on day 1 then it could easily have been on the disc/cartridge to begin with. Reading that, too, I have to admit if that character really is as rare and awesome as the game makes them out to be, and he just walks around and no one bats an eye, that's.... pretty lame. That's like if some guy was carrying the Triforce around town in some Zelda game and no one even paid attention.

gg indeed

Cool, so I don't have to play Mass Effect with my retarded friend anymore.

It seems every time that EA logo gets plastered on a franchise I like, content comes up short, superfluous expansions are released, and the fans end up paying for it. Literally. If only people wouldn't buy EA sports games every year, this probably wouldn't happen. Maybe. I mean Capcom's doing it too. SO I guess it's the fans responsibility or something. Whatever. Porn. Moar porn.

I think handling of DLC really tells you a lot about the company. I'm rather impressed with Bethesda. Granted, some of their DLC for Fallout 3 was just dumb, but they always include new inventory, story, a new map usually with a very different environment or feel and a lot of effort put in with new voiceacting and art... and it's 10 bucks.

As opposed to like 2 maps and a gun from someone else costing 15.

^ This.

And when they did make a pack that was merely items? It was two dollars (pre-order items) and four dollars (Gun Runner's Arsenal, which actually adds a buncha challenges and an extremely useful perk too). They obviously learned their lessons from the infamous "horse armor" debacle; now if only other developers would do the same. This isn't even counting the Steam sales for the various Fallout and Elder Scrolls games.. oh wait, ME3 is on Origin so, nope, no discounts here either.

There's the principle of the matter, and game balance, as well. TF2 sells items, and many of them are rather overpriced; but then again, almost everything in that game can be crafted or gotten as a drop, if not traded, so the only things the store sells you cannot get any other way are minor cosmetic items which give zero advantage to the player. If some idiot wants to spend $10 on a virtual rocket launcher rather than craft it themselves, well, that's their choice. And it IS a choice, since the option remains both open AND viable for everyone else to get it SOME OTHER WAY.

Those are two different ways to do DLC which don't screw over the customer. Mini-expansion packs which take the game into a new direction, as Fallout 3 and New Vegas' has (Operation Anchorage was an almost pure FPS, while Dead Money was survival horror, basically..), or TF2's style, where you don't need to buy anything, but have a choice to do so.. and that choice won't impact other players too much since the source of your items doesn't matter, and you have multiple other ways to obtain 'em.

Exactly. Handling of DLC well, or even just handling of the game well adds to patronage. I can't begin to count the number of people who don't have BF3 just because EA sucks that hard.