EA/BW transparency/marketing

That's the problem with terms like "cut content;" we use them inconsistently.

Every game ever has some kind of cut content. I've played BG2 with a restoration mod.

But the idea that devs suddenly decide in the middle of production to switch a bit from the game proper to DLC when that bit was actually going to make it into the game? That's just silly. The only way I could see it happening is if there's some sort of interference from external factors. Say, Anthem gets into trouble and Bio needs to transfer people off of DA4 to Anthem, so DA4 suddenly has a smaller team and now all the content won't fit before the release date.

Pretty much what AlanC9 said. This is literally correct but in practice this definition would cover every software project in the last 40 years and spans the entirety of github's contribution history. Removal of code is a fundamental concept of software development.

Unless you're arguing that the backlash against 'cut content' is in fact a campaign to ban developers from using version control, design patterns and the copy/cut/paste function, then I'd suggest that such a literal definition is so broad that it's meaningless. Ultimately, when people talk about 'cut content', they don't normally mean any form of code that was removed from the trunk for any reason whatsoever.

'Marketing ploy' is a bit strong. There's a very significant period of time between delivery deadline and actual release which in prior years was just a blank spot in the schedule that ate up cash for wages. The DLC model means that time can be used to create and finish content that goes above and beyond what would be considered 'fixes' and fine tuning.

Of course whether the individual player considers that work to be worth the price on offer (or indeed, any price) is in the eye of the beholder but if it wasn't actually ready by delivery date (as in, actually working at time of shipping and not under construction as was the case with Javik) and isn't required to complete the game then by definition it isn't part of the game, and insisting otherwise simply paints the complainer as someone who doesn't understand how software dev works.

The DLC that actually was ready at time of delivery (capcom are notorious for this) is a ethically dubious though, but it still ultimately boils down to the customer expecting to be the authority on what constitutes the finished product, which doesn't make sense. I can't think of any other industry where I could expect to inform the provider exactly what I will be receiving for my money outside of haggling in a market, which doesn't map properly to software distribution.

Well I'm in the same boat,I don't care about DLC either (Andromeda wasn't very good),personally I go out of my way NOT to buy EA games,the only exception of course is Bioware,who had a legacy before EA's involvement.

The EA mentality however is destroying the very games we support and yet many gamer's support and defend poor PR and Business practices.........after all the valid points I have made,they all end up being countered by the big book of rules.........section 12,paragraph 8 states that any company is under no obligation to speak...blah...blah....blah......a stance that mimics the EA mentality.

I don't expect change,I don't expect transparency but when I see bullshit,I'm gonna call it..........Andromeda should have been better,the drama surrounding Andromeda is of EA/Bioware's own making and that very drama is inflamed by how EA/Bioware handles the drama.

To a certain extent I was being facetious. The point was purely to highlight having a strictly literal interpretation of 'cut content' didn't make sense.

Voicework is typically completed ahead of time (particularly for the first DLC) because its makes more financial sense to get the relevant voiceover done at the the same time as base game VO when you're dealing with the same voice actors. IIRC Javik's voice work was all done prior to ME3 release.

Sorry, I can't agree with that when I watched all this drama start to build at an unreasonable rate from the very day MEA was announced.  The fans here have always been really into making very premature and largely unfounded "sky is falling" sort of predictions about Bioware games for years now.   The media certainly has to also take it's share of the blame for focusing itself largely on just the negative drama surrounding Bioware.  Nothing about Bioware seems to ever get reported in a balanced way regardless of what Bioware does.  Instead, the media does things like meming it to death.  In this case, it's also fans that insist on inflaming the drama further by going into a frenzy over DLC only 3 months after the game was released.  This is not a year after release and DLC has taken longer than 3 months to be released.

There IS nothing here to get dramatic overe... either there will be some DLC or there won't.  Someday, a sequel might be announced or one won't.  The game has been significantly patched and either you like it or you don't.  You can play it or not.  End of story.  Bioware's ultimate survival is a problem for it's executives and it's staff.  It's their business.  If they make another product, we can choose to buy it or not.  If they don't, we can't.  It's as simple as that... end of story... not very dramatic.

Who said your points were valid?

I did.

It's really moreso their own studios hanging themselves with the rope provided by EA.

Happened to Westwood, happened to Pandemic, one of the Maxis branches, and several others. EA's biggest sin has always been the corporate mentality, not excusing that problem, but they are not actively trying to fuck over people through bad business practices or poor PR, because their corporate mentality is the fact that they are under no obligation to speak to anyone. It does keep them honest, unlike the likes of say Valve who hide behind their corporate culture while doing very little in the past decade, developer-wise. 

It's all perception in the end...people perceive EA to be "money grubbing" and all of that...but the reality is a lot more complicated. Of course, it's easier to print the lie...

Well, you can continue to predict that it's not going to get anything.  I personally feel that they have not completely abandoned it yet.  I personal think it's on a bit of a bubble, but that they are still trying to find a way to keep going with this... i.e. ultimately produce a sequel game to this one... in Andromeda.  I think they do have long-term plans to eventually return the series to the Milky Way... not a reboot of the Trilogy, not with Shepard as the PC... but as a means to truly connecting the two galaxies in a time way into the future of this current game.

Fair enough.  I still think in terms of "business speak," something being 'on hiatus" usually means "we're still deciding."  So, IMHO, it's still a prediction.  We'll know if it's an accurate one only in due course.