Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could have it working on my PC today for free if that's what I wanted.

Sorry to have called you out, predcon, you tend to point out things that I hadn't heard, so I ask:)

I'd say yes there is truth to it, but it's blown out of proportion. It's mostly done for the really big sites like IGN and Gamespot that want an early or exclusive review of a big game.
And that "payment" doesn't result in an enormous jump in score. It's not like they are giving a game they would normally give a 6 a 10 instead.


Not that I have any insider knowledge or anything, That's just the general impression I remember having from some articles I read awhile ago

Didn't the first Dragon Age take about 3 to 4 years to make?
Comparing that to DA2 which came out around a year and a half later when DA was released.
I also think that if they spent another year or two making DA2, we would have a game that would have been equal to DA.

That's why the fans feel betrayed, I think, they got sold out for a quick buck.

But do you think that Bioware will learn from this mistake? I mean, a lot of people are probably not going to buy DA3 if its getting the same "treatment" that DA2 got. I only say this because a ton of people seem furious at Bioware because of this. Then again maybe I have just been reading the wrong forums..........

Ive heard various number for the production time of DA:O. Ranges from seven to five years, not usually below the five though.

Myself, ill wait to see if they learn from their mistakes, and like with DA2, if i feel they are fucking up, i wont purchase it and instead give my money to a place like Blockbuster and Gamefly and just rent it. BioWare are now on a list of game companies i am very wary about. Definitely anything from EA in my book needs to be seriously looked at before even pre-ordering now. BF3 included.

No, they will learn nothing. For me this is just a classic EA cycle of grinding an IP to the ground.
They did the same with C&C, Red Aler 3 being the last "ok" game. They wanted to cash in on that and made the catastrophe called Uprising.
Did they learn anything? No they made C&C 4.
Learned anything yet? Nooooooo, they are now reviving the franchise and I'm really scared what abomination we will get next.

The thing I don't get is that gamers and developers know how EA operates. So if you are Bioware why would you want to side with them?
You are Bioware every gamer knows you for quality and can have any publisher go your way (THQ, Atari) but no we will go live under EA's iron boot until they ruin us.

edit: I won't buy buy the game and by what I have seen until now I have lost any intrest in it. I won't even pirate it, so that's one thing they did right.

Well I'm sticking to Dragon Age: Origins. It's by far the better game and the combat is actually enjoyable. Any game that spawns enemies in the middle of battle and throws tactics out of the window combined with crappy AI that frustrates, can go get bent.

And yes, what on earth did they do with the elves??? They look like the Na'vi from Avatar went in for a gang rape.

Thank you, that is the connection that has been trying to form in my mind the last few days!

Oooooh... Sebastian is a great character. His speed makes him a much better archer than Varric and his unique skill tree has some great stuff on it. I wish you could use him in chapter one, that seems like a rather glaring oversight considering every other companion can be used in chapter one.

His chapter 2 quest is pretty awesome as well.

Wait for the end.. ;)

@StonerMk2
And that's one of the Universal Constants that we just have to accept as "granted". And it's not restricted to Big Game Corps writing in DRM to their games. Big Banks hire rent-a-cops that harass the normal banker, but are ultimately useless against a group of thieves who really want what's in that vault. Big Gov't creates the TSA, and extremely invasive screening technology and techniques, but if someone really wants to bring down a plane, it's going to happen.

@orcishgamer
I am Troisrue! God of trivia! Also I'm repeating general dissent about EA's DRM, which may or may not be specific to Dragon Age 2. Coincidentally, the majority of kiddies who post such comments are more than likely repeating what they "heard from some guy", and have no idea what a "rootkit" is or how to code anything beyond the simple "I love Teacher! GOTO 10" BASIC line they were taught in computer camp years ago. "OMG! Rootkit = spyware = EA watchin me wank!" is the only thing they know, because they watch too much of that stuff where "it starts with a 'benign' keybit for authenticating authorization, and then they can control the world because they have a foothold in everyone's computers". It's called mass hysteria, which can only be counteracted with mass education.

Sorry, that was longer a response than I wanted to write, but I get a little pissed when someone posts a negative review of a game based on it's security measures, and not on the merits of the game's actual content. I mean, if a game is bad because it's short and the story sucks and the camera movements make play near-impossible, then post a review detailing that stuff. You don't make a real-estate review of a home based on the lock in the front door. Locks can be changed. You can buy the game and then use DRM countermeasures to play it, if that makes you feel better. Just buy the game first.

Considering that DRM is a part of the product people are buying it's perfectly reasonable to include DRM issues in a review of the game. If people are having issues with a game's DRM and having to waste their time jumping through various hoops just to be able to start the game, then I certainly want to know that so I can take it into account when deciding whether or not the game is worth my money. Now, there's certainly a fair amount of nonconstructive DRM hysteria that's found among the reviews (right alongside the raging fanboy reviews that tell absolutely nothing useful), but there's also some very useful information to be found in reviews that mention DRM that people like myself very much want to be aware of before making any purchasing decisions.

Fine, but writing the entire review about the DRM is unacceptable, and so is scoring a product 1/5 stars on said product's page on an online merchant, basing that score entirely on the DRM.

Why? I'm personally not given to writing reviews based on DRM (or writing reviews at all, actually), but as a personal example, I'd have given BioShock a 1/5 at best due solely to the DRM. Why? because I bought the game, installed extra RAM and then a second hard drive (note that these are not major hardware changes) and was locked out of playing my game. Since I did this just after I'd fired up the game and had only played a grand total of 20 minutes, I was more than perturbed. Add to that the fact the tool they eventually released to recover activations didn't work for me, I was locked out of my game for over two months and yeah, I think a low score based solely on the DRM would have been very fair in that case..

Hysterical anti-DRM rants/reviews aren't helpful, no. But if you're having genuine problems even playing your legally purchased game solely due to half-assed DRM schemes, I think it's more than fair to base your score on the game on that alone.