Dragon Age 3 II: [This Thread Title Was Deemed Inappropriate By The Chantry]

[Morty]

Am I supposed to provide you with a specific game that does all those things, now?

[Psyren]

Am I supposed to provide you with a specific game that does all those things, now?

An example of one that has pulled it off would be nice. So far the only one I've seen that is truly mundane is Mount & Blade, but since the enemies are mundane too it doesn't really say much.

[Morty]

What does it matter if enemies in M&B are mundane? You face regular enemies in Dragon Age as well. Sometimes they're undead or demonic, but either way they're something you can destroy using conventional means. Mages also die like everyone else when you get up close to them or shoot them. Big monsters are a different story, but that's when you do pull out unrealistic exploits, magic, or both. It's honestly starting to feel as though you're moving the goalposts at this point.

If you want a real reason why M&B doesn't work as an example, it's because the gameplay model isn't really comparable. You play one character who indirectly commands a small army. Not really similar to controlling a four-person group.

As far as actual examples go, I like the idea behind the combat tactics in Of Orcs & Men. The execution could use polish, but the premise has some merit. Different moves are used against different enemies and there's little to no combat healing. Attacks tend to be brutal, but it applies to the enemies as well.

[Dienekes]

Clearly it's not as easy as you make out, since the first example listed by the guy trying to advocate for this style ends up relying on magic to work.

Now, Mount & Blade doesn't - but what do you fight in M&B exactly? All I see are a bunch of other mundanes - cavalry, archers, footmen that kind of thing. No dragons, no fiends, no undead, no spellcasters etc.

Mods my boy. You fight them in mods. Mount and Blade wouldn't be half the game it is without the fantastic modding community. Orcs and spell casters and the like are dangerous and deadly but you can kill them like you can kill anyone else.

You paralyze its tentacles with magic so that you can safely cut them, and I'm pretty sure you jump on one and ride it around as it tries to crush you. I'd call that pretty fantastic.

Yeah, you're forced to use magic in some boss fights. I said that. Doesn't change what I said about the game that going full swordsman feels right. Or at least much closer to right than anything DA has coughed up. The game, unfortunately has spots that arbitrarily force you to use magic, often just for the sake of encounter design but it is present.

"+X magic" is still magic as far as I'm concerned. You're still relying on something other than your sword arm and gumption to get the job done.

True. But your just ignoring the part about feeling vs fluff now aren't you? The magic sword doesn't change your abilities or is used as a hand wave for why your mundane abilities become fantastic. It's just a sword that deals 2 more damage. The combat of the game still feels appropriate and within the realm of believably mundane.

[Psyren]

Mods my boy. You fight them in mods. Mount and Blade wouldn't be half the game it is without the fantastic modding community. Orcs and spell casters and the like are dangerous and deadly but you can kill them like you can kill anyone else.

If mods are a viable solution to you then why complain about Bioware? Mod your Dragon Age protagonists to be totally mundane, where you can fight darkspawn with nothing more than your beard and a bladder of wild irish rose if you want Mod the alcoholic drinks so that they fully restore health, stamina and grant you maximum resists. Or rename all the spells to "alchemy" or "martial techniques" or something.

Yeah, you're forced to use magic in some boss fights. I said that. Doesn't change what I said about the game that going full swordsman feels right. Or at least much closer to right than anything DA has coughed up. The game, unfortunately has spots that arbitrarily force you to use magic, often just for the sake of encounter design but it is present.

That's my point - if you're relying on magic, in what way are you a "full swordsman?" It's an oxymoron.

True. But your just ignoring the part about feeling vs fluff now aren't you? The magic sword doesn't change your abilities or is used as a hand wave for why your mundane abilities become fantastic. It's just a sword that deals 2 more damage. The combat of the game still feels appropriate and within the realm of believably mundane.

Eh, "feeling" is just wishful thinking. If you're relying on magic, you're relying on magic. I don't see what the big deal is with admitting that and embracing it.

[Dienekes]

If mods are a viable solution to you then why complain about Bioware? Mod your Dragon Age protagonists to be totally mundane, where you can fight darkspawn with nothing more than your beard and a bladder of wild irish rose if you want Mod the alcoholic drinks so that they fully restore health, stamina and grant you maximum resists. Or rename all the spells to "alchemy" or "martial techniques" or something.

I'm talking about the basic mechanics of the game and tone they are trying to create. I know mods can help (Oh, I did love the weapon speed mod for DAO), but they can only help so much. M&B seems more like an outlier than anything as I have never seen the level of complex additions added to the game like they have there.

That's my point - if you're relying on magic, in what way are you a "full swordsman?" It's an oxymoron.

The game got the combat right for 99% of it. I'm not going to write all that off as a great example of how to do it, because of one sequence where it forced you not to play it that way. Using your sword in a way that felt like a swordsman allowed you cut through demons, golems, enemy spellcasters, weird goblin things, and ghosts. It did that fantastically. I would like to see a system like that (maybe not exactly, it could use some tweaks, more control on the sword blows, and a few additional abilities to flesh out the combat) implemented more often, preferably without that one segment where you had to cast a spell, but that's going into my dream game territory.

Eh, "feeling" is just wishful thinking. If you're relying on magic, you're relying on magic. I don't see what the big deal is with admitting that and embracing it.

No, feeling is the most important part of the combat system. Otherwise you're just blocks knocking into each other watching bars go down until one is declared a winner. If you pick a Mage and don't get to cast spells, it'd be annoying, you wouldn't feel like a Mage. Similarly, if you play a warrior and the entire time you are shooting out fireballs it would annoy me, as I would not feel like a warrior.

[Psyren]

I'm talking about the basic mechanics of the game and tone they are trying to create.

It seems to me that modding dragons and mages into M&B is a pretty radical departure from the mechanics and tone they were trying to create.

You claim to value realism, but to me, it would be even less realistic to battle threats like those using entirely mundane means. And evidently the designers agree or they'd have put dragons in themselves rather than leaving it up to the modding community to do it. From that I can conclude that whatever niche would be served by having supernatural threats get taken down by mundane means, it's still just that, a niche.

The game got the combat right for 99% of it. I'm not going to write all that off as a great example of how to do it, because of one sequence where it forced you not to play it that way. Using your sword in a way that felt like a swordsman allowed you cut through demons, golems, enemy spellcasters, weird goblin things, and ghosts. It did that fantastically. I would like to see a system like that (maybe not exactly, it could use some tweaks, more control on the sword blows, and a few additional abilities to flesh out the combat) implemented more often, preferably without that one segment where you had to cast a spell, but that's going into my dream game territory.

In this game as in many others, you're a swordsman enhanced with magic. To me, that's all the explanation Geralt needs to be able to handle any threat in the game - once he's no longer mundane, the sky is the limit.

No, feeling is the most important part of the combat system. Otherwise you're just blocks knocking into each other watching bars go down until one is declared a winner. If you pick a Mage and don't get to cast spells, it'd be annoying, you wouldn't feel like a Mage. Similarly, if you play a warrior and the entire time you are shooting out fireballs it would annoy me, as I would not feel like a warrior.

I'll agree here, but I don't recall any warriors that shoot fireballs in Dragon Age or anything even close to that. I think you're arguing against something that isn't even an issue.

EDIT:

What does it matter if enemies in M&B are mundane? You face regular enemies in Dragon Age as well. Sometimes they're undead or demonic, but either way they're something you can destroy using conventional means. Mages also die like everyone else when you get up close to them or shoot them. Big monsters are a different story, but that's when you do pull out unrealistic exploits, magic, or both. It's honestly starting to feel as though you're moving the goalposts at this point.

What goalposts did I move? Early on in Dragon Age, yes, you defeat your enemies by wholly mundane means. Neither I nor Dienekes argued against that.

Dienekes however went on to say, and I quote:

"But when I play a warrior suddenly getting magic half way through the game just feels like they're not even bothering to actually design the class."

To which I replied - "getting magic half way through the game" is an assumption of most games in this genre. Whether you get innate magic abilities or simply get magic gear, you're still getting magic. To complain about it is to complain about the genre as a whole, not any one specific game.

As far as actual examples go, I like the idea behind the combat tactics in Of Orcs & Men. The execution could use polish, but the premise has some merit. Different moves are used against different enemies and there's little to no combat healing. Attacks tend to be brutal, but it applies to the enemies as well.

Yeah, this is a pretty low-magic title, but like M&B, the enemies are low-magic too. You've got the odd priest who can heal or put a dot on you, and all the enemies are humanoid. No dragons, no demons, no spirits etc. The premise works fine here but would be a mismatch for Thedas.

[Avilan the Grey]

The problem with the route the DA games has taken is that you no longer play a rogue, or a fighter. You play a Magical Knight or a Holy Ninja. There is a huge difference between getting enhanced abilities and magical gear (I have no problem with burning swords, or armos making you immune to acid or daggers who always cause critical hits) and simply becoming... a cartoon. Let's face it, they DID create the Awesome-Button, because every time you make a move the game switches out of the story and into Rule Of Cool. Somewhere after Hawke become level 5, everything you do is built on one thing only: Rule Of Cool. It doesn't even pretend to be actual combat anymore, it's just fireworks and loss of suspension of disbelief.

Or to put it another way: Dungeon And Dragons is more realistic.

[Morty]

What goalposts did I move? Early on in Dragon Age, yes, you defeat your enemies by wholly mundane means. Neither I nor Dienekes argued against that.

Dienekes however went on to say, and I quote:

"But when I play a warrior suddenly getting magic half way through the game just feels like they're not even bothering to actually design the class."

To which I replied - "getting magic half way through the game" is an assumption of most games in this genre. Whether you get innate magic abilities or simply get magic gear, you're still getting magic. To complain about it is to complain about the genre as a whole, not any one specific game.

Dienekes argues what he does. What I argue, and what you continuously try to drag towards "but how do you deal with magic and monsters?" is that injecting more realism into the combat model would benefit the entire game, by providing a more engaging gameplay for warriors and rogues and thus moving beyond the "attack and hit a button to attack harder now and then" routine. Whether magic is injected on top of that, and whether you think it's necessary, is tangential to my point.

[Avilan the Grey]

Forgot one point in my post above... The game DA2's combat most closely resembles is Diablo. Of course I don't care about it in Diablo, because quite frankly I don't care about my suspension of disbelief in Diablo. It's not needed, because it's just about loot.

[Morty]

The game DA2's combat most resembles is Dragon Age Origins. The form changed, partially. The function did not.

[Avilan the Grey]

The game DA2's combat most resembles is Dragon Age Origins. The form changed, partially. The function did not.

We have been through this. In theory this might be true, but not in practice. Or maybe it's just a matter of what you notice. You notice "it's the same basic functionality, just speeded up and with worse camera angles" (or whatever). I notice "Look, rogues can teleport now! and rain arrows by shooting god in the ass, apparently", aka the same kind of silly stuff you see in the Diablo franchise (crossbows shooting 8 bolts in a 45 degree angle on full automatic fire, etc).

[Morty]

On an entirely unrelated note, does anyone know if there will be a demo version of Inquisition? I'm hoping there will be, since it does always make the decision about buying a game easier.

[Dienekes]

It seems to me that modding dragons and mages into M&B is a pretty radical departure from the mechanics and tone they were trying to create.

You claim to value realism, but to me, it would be even less realistic to battle threats like those using entirely mundane means. And evidently the designers agree or they'd have put dragons in themselves rather than leaving it up to the modding community to do it. From that I can conclude that whatever niche would be served by having supernatural threats get taken down by mundane means, it's still just that, a niche.



In this game as in many others, you're a swordsman enhanced with magic. To me, that's all the explanation Geralt needs to be able to handle any threat in the game - once he's no longer mundane, the sky is the limit.

Except, for just about everything other than the krayan utterly mundane people can join in the fun. You have assassin/spy master guy or elf freedom fighter guy fight besides you able to kill ghosts and golems and so on. While in the tourney you can get support by an utterly mundane knight and utterly mundane dwarf. They can kill anything you can kill, because that is the type of world it is. Sure these monsters are big and scary and they're more dangerous than you're average thug. But they die to a sword in the back just the same as anything else.

Though this is for the most part not really my point. My point is that I find mundane lower to no magic combat fun when done in a way that allows you to feel like a competent swordsman without the flash of that game you mentioned. I presented you with two games that have very fun martial combat systems that I wished DA would take a few notes off of. Fully understanding this was unlikely and noting that it is just my preference for games. The fact Geralt is magical has next to nothing to do with anything. They were strong martial combat games where you can feel like a competent swordsman. That's it. There's no real further argument after that. Yes. DA is higher magic level than those games. Yes. My Mount and Blade character would die if he ran at a dragon like Iron Bull does. I have admitted this with my first post that to get a game with the combat I would want there would have to be radical changes to the gameplay that Bioware has no obligation to implement. It is only that I prefer this game type and hope ( knowing they won't) move toward it.

I'll agree here, but I don't recall any warriors that shoot fireballs in Dragon Age or anything even close to that. I think you're arguing against something that isn't even an issue.

No instead they shoot balls of light and suck life from the dead. Though those are thankfully optional. You're the one who brought up wanting it to play like that game with the fireball shooting rogue. I am saying I would not like that game, especially if you want me to take the world seriously.

[Giggling Ghast]

On an entirely unrelated note, does anyone know if there will be a demo version of Inquisition? I'm hoping there will be, since it does always make the decision about buying a game easier.

There are no plans for a demo. This has been repeatedly stated by the devs, so I think it's basically a done deal.

[Morty]

I see. Not surprising, really, but DA2 and ME3 did get demo versions, so I wanted confirmation anyway.

[Zevox]

There are no plans for a demo. This has been repeatedly stated by the devs, so I think it's basically a done deal.

Really? That's pretty strange, given their last few games have had demos.

[Psyren]

Except, for just about everything other than the krayan utterly mundane people can join in the fun. You have assassin/spy master guy or elf freedom fighter guy fight besides you able to kill ghosts and golems and so on. While in the tourney you can get support by an utterly mundane knight and utterly mundane dwarf. They can kill anything you can kill, because that is the type of world it is. Sure these monsters are big and scary and they're more dangerous than you're average thug. But they die to a sword in the back just the same as anything else.

Thing is, your utterly mundane knight and dwarf would get their asses handed to them by the kayran or Letho or any other enemy that is actually a threat. I'm not for a minute saying that you should need magic to take on every opponent, but in games like this it gives you a needed edge against the deadliest ones while maintaining credibility. That's its purpose, more or less.

Though this is for the most part not really my point. My point is that I find mundane lower to no magic combat fun when done in a way that allows you to feel like a competent swordsman without the flash of that game you mentioned. I presented you with two games that have very fun martial combat systems that I wished DA would take a few notes off of. Fully understanding this was unlikely and noting that it is just my preference for games. The fact Geralt is magical has next to nothing to do with anything. They were strong martial combat games where you can feel like a competent swordsman. That's it. There's no real further argument after that. Yes. DA is higher magic level than those games. Yes. My Mount and Blade character would die if he ran at a dragon like Iron Bull does. I have admitted this with my first post that to get a game with the combat I would want there would have to be radical changes to the gameplay that Bioware has no obligation to implement. It is only that I prefer this game type and hope ( knowing they won't) move toward it.

For the record I don't mind Witcher's combat at all. But I don't really see what makes it such a good illustration of what you seem to be asking for. Yes, it's lower-magic than Dragon Age. Yes, the bladework feels visceral and immediate, as I saw in the Letho fight. But I also see a ton of dodge-rolling around and force-pushing one another with Aard or fireblasting with Igni and throwing up blue energy barriers with Quen. I also don't see nearly the number of opponents that DAO/DA2 have fielded - that kind of in-your-face high-impact fighting is best suited for one-on-one and small groups, not the roomfuls of baddies DA pits you against.

But DAI combat does seem more impactful in spite of that. When the Iron Bull was sending those soldiers flying, I could practically feel every crunch as they ragdolled.

No instead they shoot balls of light and suck life from the dead. Though those are thankfully optional. You're the one who brought up wanting it to play like that game with the fireball shooting rogue. I am saying I would not like that game, especially if you want me to take the world seriously.

What "fireball shooting rogue?" I didn't say or see anything like that

Really? That's pretty strange, given their last few games have had demos.

Hmm... This is their first game under Frostbite - maybe that's why? Perhaps it's harder for Frostbite games to have a demo.

[Beowulf DW]

Hmm... This is their first game under Frostbite - maybe that's why? Perhaps it's harder for Frostbite games to have a demo.

Or they're worried that somebody's going to leak an ending again. If there was even any truth to that rumor.

[Psyren]

Or they're worried that somebody's going to leak an ending again. If there was even any truth to that rumor.

Oh man, was it the demo files that came from? We may never get a demo again if that's truly the case!

[Giggling Ghast]

Really? That's pretty strange, given their last few games have had demos.

There are a few strikes against releasing demos, and RPGs in particular apparently do not demo well in comparison to other games. Besides that, wasn't there some issue with someone hacking the ME3 demo?

[Zevox]

Or they're worried that somebody's going to leak an ending again. If there was even any truth to that rumor.

Oh man, was it the demo files that came from? We may never get a demo again if that's truly the case!

Yeesh. Yeah, sadly, if that's the case, I could them reacting that way. I'd tend to think the better reaction would be to just make sure that your demos don't contain files that they shouldn't, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't want to risk even a small chance of a repeat there. That sucks.

[Psyren]

Yeesh. Yeah, sadly, if that's the case, I could them reacting that way. I'd tend to think the better reaction would be to just make sure that your demos don't contain files that they shouldn't, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't want to risk even a small chance of a repeat there. That sucks.

Honestly, demos are generally a bad idea anyway. I was actually surprised that a game as recent as ME3 even had one.

[Beowulf DW]

Oh man, was it the demo files that came from? We may never get a demo again if that's truly the case!

Yeesh. Yeah, sadly, if that's the case, I could them reacting that way. I'd tend to think the better reaction would be to just make sure that your demos don't contain files that they shouldn't, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't want to risk even a small chance of a repeat there. That sucks.

That's what I heard: somebody hacked the ME3 demo and leaked the ending, and you all remember where that went.

The pieces certainly seem to fit together, but true or not, it would be a major concern for a company like Bioware that's built their reputation on the stories in their games.

I bet that the gameplay footage they've been so unusually eager show people (relative to other companies that is) is suppose to take the place of a demo. It's them saying "See? It works just fine!" without giving anyone the chance to hack anything. Many companies I've seen lately appear to favor the "open beta" approach to giving people an idea of how things will work, but Bioware seems to be doubling down on this strategy.

[Ailurus]

Honestly, demos are generally a bad idea anyway. I was actually surprised that a game as recent as ME3 even had one.

As much as I like the EC guys, there's several points (that I consider major) that they missed on that one.

First (PC specific, admittedly) is just making sure the darn thing runs in a playable fashion. Granted EA is better than some other companies (*cough*Ubisoft*cough*) when it comes to PC ports, but there's still plenty of PC ports out there that run TERRIBLY. And even if the port is good, its still quite possible that the game may or may not be playable if you're towards the lower end of the system requirements. And there's no way I'm going to shell out a pile of cash for a game that may not even run.

The second concern they skipped over applies directly to DA:I for me. If you're on the fence about a game, you want to try it out before you buy it, as EC acknowledges in the first few minutes of the episode. But, no demo means no way to try it out and thus the game likely gets filed in the "maybe I'll pick it up on Steam sale a year or two from now" (or Origin price drop in this case). (And, frankly, that was a problem with EC's categorization - if you start 'on the fence' and the demo makes you decide not to buy, that's not a lost sale. Its a non-sale that stays non-sale.)

[dehro]

Somebody should make a back in my day meme gif about the times in which demos weren't even an option

[Divayth Fyr]

if you start 'on the fence' and the demo makes you decide not to buy, that's not a lost sale. Its a non-sale that stays non-sale.)

It is the same logic that makes companies count every single pirated copy of a game as a lost sale - despite the fact that many of those who download games wouldn't get them if they had to pay and some use torrents as demos, to see whether the thing will run and how is the gameplay.

[Psyren]

As much as I like the EC guys, there's several points (that I consider major) that they missed on that one.

Actually, the outcomes/graph came from EEDAR. The EC crew was just explaining the data in an easy-to-digest format, but these are statistics, not theorycrafting or conjecture.

First (PC specific, admittedly) is just making sure the darn thing runs in a playable fashion. Granted EA is better than some other companies (*cough*Ubisoft*cough*) when it comes to PC ports, but there's still plenty of PC ports out there that run TERRIBLY. And even if the port is good, its still quite possible that the game may or may not be playable if you're towards the lower end of the system requirements. And there's no way I'm going to shell out a pile of cash for a game that may not even run.

The second concern they skipped over applies directly to DA:I for me. If you're on the fence about a game, you want to try it out before you buy it, as EC acknowledges in the first few minutes of the episode. But, no demo means no way to try it out and thus the game likely gets filed in the "maybe I'll pick it up on Steam sale a year or two from now" (or Origin price drop in this case). (And, frankly, that was a problem with EC's categorization - if you start 'on the fence' and the demo makes you decide not to buy, that's not a lost sale. Its a non-sale that stays non-sale.)

Both of your points are invalidated by one simple fact you're forgetting - Origin, unlike Steam, lets you return games. So you can buy DAI, discover it does not run properly and get a full refund (point 1); or you can set aside some scratch to pre-order it, try it out for a few days, decide you're not really hooked, and return it for a full refund (point 2).

[Ailurus]

Actually, the outcomes/graph came from EEDAR. The EC crew was just explaining the data in an easy-to-digest format, but these are statistics, not theorycrafting or conjecture.

I never said EC (or EEDAR) made up their numbers. But, the conclusions they're reaching aren't valid because it seems that all they looked at was "does the game have a demo, a trailer, both or neither." There's no information provided (that I can find at least, if you do have a link to a full breakdown of how they did the study I'd love to read it) on what the marketing budgets were, how well known the series was, etc. There's plenty of AAA games out there that have massive marketing budgets, flood all the review sites, etc. that never bother with a demo. Even Aliens: Colonial Marines still moved 1.3 million copies. A few massively marketed games could easily distort the graph, and similarly a few indie games with demos (I don't have exact numbers on indie games overall, but based on the ones I own about 75% of them have demos) that only move a handful of copies will pull the numbers down. Unless their study accounted for that, I'm not going to put any stock in their claim that releasing a demo functionally halves your sales number.

But, even if demos can hurt sales figures, I still want companies to release demos. Why? Because not only is it still easily possible to have highly successful games with demos, but the demo helps customers make better and more informed choices, and also can help stop a lot of corporate BS that's becoming more and more common. Taking Colonial Marines again, if they'd released a playable demo of that then people would have known it was terrible and thus they wouldn't have racked up well over a million sales on it. Or for a more recent but less extreme example, the PC version of Watch Dogs both having performance issues and having noticeable downgrades from the preview materials would have been discovered if Ubisoft had released a demo. Yes, in both cases it would have dropped sales. But it would have dropped sales because people would have seen that the game was not what was advertised in the trailer, And games losing sales because they find out that the marketing material was not representative of the final product is something I'm more than fine with.

I know this has gone way off topic from the DA series, so I'll wrap it up with one quote from a gamasutra blog on demos.

What Does a Demo Do? I'll tell you: it has three primary functions:

To assure the end user that the product actually installs and runs ok on their machine
It gives the potential customer a good long demonstration of the game with no up-front investment on their part
The shocker: it then gives them 99 excuses not to buy the game.

Video [a trailer] manages to sidestep 2 and 3 nicely. Video still gives the customer a demonstration of the game, albeit non-interactive; but it does have the potential to cram all the interesting bits into a very short space of time - rather like a movie trailer does. But, barring a total disdain for the style or genre of game, it doesn't give the customer any reasons not to buy the game. Not a single one. You have to actually pay to form an opinion on how it plays.

And that last paragraph sums it up perfectly. If a brief chance to actually play your game is going to make me not want to buy it, or if you're game is short or shallow enough that a small amount of hands-on gameplay is going to make me feel like I'm done with it, then why would I want to buy it? Doubly so if its $40-60.

Both of your points are invalidated by one simple fact you're forgetting - Origin, unlike Steam, lets you return games. So you can buy DAI, discover it does not run properly and get a full refund (point 1); or you can set aside some scratch to pre-order it, try it out for a few days, decide you're not really hooked, and return it for a full refund (point 2).

And you know what that functionally is? A demo! Its nearly the same as the shareware model that's existed for games for two and a half decades - try the game out, if you like it pay the dev money. Only its slightly reversed since the money comes out first.

A demo solves the problem of not having a demo? *gasp* I'm shocked. And I may do that for DA:I, assuming I can get a time window near the release date where I can actually manage to dig a decent amount into the game during the "24 hrs from when you first press play" return window.

[Psyren]

Taking Colonial Marines again, if they'd released a playable demo of that then people would have known it was terrible and thus they wouldn't have racked up well over a million sales on it. Or for a more recent but less extreme example, the PC version of Watch Dogs both having performance issues and having noticeable downgrades from the preview materials would have been discovered if Ubisoft had released a demo. Yes, in both cases it would have dropped sales. But it would have dropped sales because people would have seen that the game was not what was advertised in the trailer, And games losing sales because they find out that the marketing material was not representative of the final product is something I'm more than fine with.

Uh... you've just shot your own point in the foot far more expertly than I ever could have done. "If they had only released a demo, we'd have known how crappy it was and they'd never have gotten so many sales" is a really great rationale for companies not to release a demo! Especially since demos themselves cost additional time and money to make. Seriously, what?

I know this has gone way off topic from the DA series, so I'll wrap it up with one quote from a gamasutra blog on demos.

And that last paragraph sums it up perfectly. If a brief chance to actually play your game is going to make me not want to buy it, or if you're game is short or shallow enough that a small amount of hands-on gameplay is going to make me feel like I'm done with it, then why would I want to buy it? Doubly so if its $40-60.

...This article is word-for-word agreeing with EC's stance - it's saying that demos are pointless. Demos do nothing to convince consumers to buy the product that a simple trailer or gameplay video doesn't do, and can actually give them "99 excuses" not to buy. So I'm very confused as to which side you're advocating for by citing this.

And you know what that functionally is? A demo! Its nearly the same as the shareware model that's existed for games for two and a half decades - try the game out, if you like it pay the dev money. Only its slightly reversed since the money comes out first.

A demo solves the problem of not having a demo? *gasp* I'm shocked. And I may do that for DA:I, assuming I can get a time window near the release date where I can actually manage to dig a decent amount into the game during the "24 hrs from when you first press play" return window.

No, it's not "functionally a demo" at all, nor even shareware. Demos and shareware games are standalone products - they need to contain technology that either lets a partial game run with a bunch of files missing, or technology that contains everything but pinches off access after a certain amount of time has passed or progress has been made. What Origin does is different - they get you to pay the full price up front, and the onus is on you to return the game and get that money back. If you're not clear as to why the reversal of timing makes a big difference, there's a big reason why practices like mail-in rebates have become so popular - because once you convince someone to make that outlay, the conversion rate of people who go after that refund is actually pretty low.

In other words, everyone who plays this "demo" as you describe it, has paid full price, whereas everyone who downloaded a traditional demo paid nothing. Every single person who paid for the game and did not return it is profit.