Dragon Age News Thread

You don't have to at all? The modding/cc comunity is well supported so you don't have to buy new stuff to get new stuff in game, Sims 4 regularly adds free things in too via patches, and it's not really recommended to buy each pack anyway as different packs support different styles of play, i.e if you like playing with families get Parenthood GP, like the occult get Vampires GP, like getting into wacky adventures with your sim Jungle Adventure GP... also they tend to be on sale alot so I wouldn't reccommend buying them unless you really like the pack enough at launch. It's not like you're buying $400 upfront either, it's content that is released over years - it's basically a GaaS game and has been since pretty much Sims 2, though I  would argue Sims 1 as well.  I guess I don't see how a developer producing more content after release is exploititive, as it's optional to buy it, these things were never going to be put in base game anyway. It would be like saying Sony is exploitive as they have people buy a console and then pay to buy games from them on it? I mean some monetisation methods are crappy no doubt, but there isn't any RNG in these packs, they show clearly what's in them and they come with gameplay content, and you can wait to sale if you don't think they are worth it at the price, and if you don't buy a pack it doesn't lock you from content in the base game or packs you already have. I'm not sure how much more pro-consumer they can get in that, there are games with much worse monetisation policies - and it's not like if they introduce a new base game, you're locked out of your previous games either.

I said it before, but I'll say it again: The logo did a diet and slimmed down. 

The new logo is lacking some of the lines that made it characteristic of BioWare... Also, the use of lowercase makes it look less badass. Ditto Rascoth in .

They do still have the little spike on the W, except it's on the middle point of the letter rather than the first. I still can't tell if I like the change or not....

My first thought: why the need to change the logo? Did they think the old one had become unlucky or something? I do hope someone wasn't paid a lot of money to come up with that new one.

Come to think of it, they did say they were moving to a new space a few months ago right?  Did that happen?

Oh I know that companies and organisations change logos for these reasons. I've worked in them and to my mind it just ends up using money that could have been better spent elsewhere, particularly when the changes are essentially minor tweeks. It is a "Emperor's New Clothes" type of scenario. Everyone at the top thinks it is something you need to do to stay relevant, start afresh, etc, etc, and the marketing crew convince them of it but really it is a load of bull***t but everyone lower down is either too afraid to say so or isn't listened to anyway. If a logo was good to begin with and has stood the test of time then it is something everyone immediately recognises and identifies with, so leave it as it is.

If they don't' drastically change all brand identity I can't see it costing an awful lot of money. In fact, the change is so slight (all things considered) I bet most people/casual players won't really notice it.

Also - I can't say I can count myself as a fan of a previous logo. It was a bit generic to begin with and somehow spoke late '90/early '00 design for me. So I guess they updated a bit of a generic logo of yesterday's design trends to a bit of generic logo of today's design trends.

I'm aware we're not talking pocket change for changes like that, but relatively speaking it's likely that they haven't spent a ton of their budget on it.