323 réponses à ce sujet

[RurouniSaiya-jin]

frayjog wrote...

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here.  Of course DLC that already exists isn't scheduled to make an appearance 2 years after the game is released.  My point is that DAO is an example of a game that was released with DLC ready to sell as soon as it made the most sense.  I only stated this because it seemed that some people were under the impression that DLC isn't as well developed as the original game and that the reason for this is that there isn't as much time to develop the DLC. 

I'm not arguing that EA is some super-evil corporation out to screw everyone out of their money, or the relative value of DLC as time progresses from the release of a game. 

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought you were implying that all DLC was made in advance. My mistake. Ignore my posts then.

[frayjog]

RurouniSaiya-jin wrote...

frayjog wrote...

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here.  Of course DLC that already exists isn't scheduled to make an appearance 2 years after the game is released.  My point is that DAO is an example of a game that was released with DLC ready to sell as soon as it made the most sense.  I only stated this because it seemed that some people were under the impression that DLC isn't as well developed as the original game and that the reason for this is that there isn't as much time to develop the DLC. 

I'm not arguing that EA is some super-evil corporation out to screw everyone out of their money, or the relative value of DLC as time progresses from the release of a game. 

Oh. I'm sorry. I thought you were implying that all DLC was made in advance. My mistake. Ignore my posts then.

Eh, I didn't exactly word it perfectly.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well sure, but it irks me when arguments get recycled. Going in circles get's boring.
Any particular reason you linked to my profile? 

Too lazy to type so I copied your handle. Turns out the link came with it. Isn't it great when machines try to be helpful?

[Haexpane]

DLC is like everything else, some good some bad. Get over it.

[Alyka]

13Dannyboy13 wrote...

Lilisia wrote...

Well, it is only 'taking advantage' if you are obliged to buy it. But we have choice. It's totally optional. If you don't want it you don't have to pay for it. I don't see why it is an issue really.

I agree somewhat, but my problem is that some of these "DLC" are meant to be in the game from the start and are purposely kept out to be added as DLC for a quick money grab. I have no problem with DLC if it actually adds to the game, but a quick one hour DLC for a new weapon or some armor is just taking advantage of people. Yes, not buying it is a simple solution of course, but the fact that these companies abuse it is what annoys me.

Some games do that.They're basicly making you pay for something that was already there on the disc that you already paid for.For instance, Street Fighter 4, they released DLC so you can choose the colors for the fighters outfits which were probably on the disc already.That right there is bs.
I bought Awakening on release. Matter of fact, I pre-ordered it.I won't do that again with DLC.
DA:O gameplay is roughly anywhere from -/40hours (if you rush through the game) up to 80 hours (if you take your time and do everything in the game).And that costs $60.00 where I live.Awakening costed $39.99 and the gameplay time is around 15 hours.That's only 1/4 the length of gameplay of DA:O which is about how long an expansion should be, but the price is a little over half of what I paid for DA:O.It has bugs that haven't been fixed yet.
And now Awakening is selling for $19.99 at the EA store.
I won't be buying DLC on release anymore.I'm going to wait.

[13Dannyboy13]

Alyka wrote...
Awakening costed $39.99 and the gameplay time is around 15 hours.That's only 1/4 the length of gameplay of DA:O which is about how long an expansion should be, but the price is a little over half of what I paid for DA:O.It has bugs that haven't been fixed yet.

That is exactly why I cancelled my pre-order, $40 for what is basicly a stand-alone DLC really. The fact that they did absolutely nothing to fix any bugs was the final thing that made me cancel it, the glitched endings carry over, save corruption is still there, dexterity STILL broken, it's like they didn't even try to fix it, just gave us a buggy patch to let us play the expansion. The "expansion" is really what DLC should be like, not some cheap 45 min quest for new armor that costs you $10.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Well sure, but it irks me when arguments get recycled. Going in circles get's boring.
Any particular reason you linked to my profile? 

Too lazy to type so I copied your handle. Turns out the link came with it. Isn't it great when machines try to be helpful?

What really would have been great is if it had made a link to my bazaar URL! 

[searanox]

Of course it's a giant ****ing waste of money. You'd have to be seriously disillusioned to think that you are somehow being rewarded for being given the opportunity to blow your cash on sub-par, short and overpriced add-ons. There is no other explanation: you have been fed lies, and you have learned to enjoy your misery.

[TheMadCat]

Only quoted parts I felt were relevant, not really looking to dive into another opinion war.

I disagree. The clamour for cheaper products leads the companies to
produce said product.

If you want to look at it that way be my guest, but the reality is competition does far more to reduce prices than consumer noise.

No, consumers want products for fair prices, there’s a difference. In
case of DLC, that price is subjective.

No consumers want for nothing, always have and always will. Would you rather have something for free? Of course you would. A $1 for WK instead of $7? Hell yeah you'd want that. What consumers want (Everyone wants for a little as possible) and what consumers view as reasonable (Incredibly subjective to every individual) are two completely different subjects.

You do have a choice.

 You either abstain from your two beers, or you don’t buy it.

 Simple.

 If enough people don’t buy it, EA will either lower the cost, or stop
making DLC.

Or, I could say you to the beer charging $8 and pick up the beer being charged for $5. If I don't want to pay $5 for RTO, well I'm out of luck. So no, you don't have the same level of choice. This is what I mean when I say no choice, EA has you by the balls and can price as they please because there is no alternative for you. Obviously they'll keep it at a level that will generate their target number but you aren't getting the price you may be getting if their was a second party.

But you can’t complain about pricing without knowing what you’re aiming
for. Like you said, value is subjective. The question is, how much will you
pay to entertain yourself for two hours. In my case, the DLC is a no-brainer.

What I'm complaining about is that we don't know if we're getting hosed or not. EA has a monopoly on Dragon Age DLC, they are free to set prices at will so long as they can assure themselves they reach their target. Again, if another company came in and said we could do Warden's Keep and sell it for half the price than it's obvious there is better deals to be had that still lead to financial success for the company. If you're willing to pay the $5 than fine, if it's something I feel than I'd buy it to. The gist of my posts isn't that DLC is overprices, rather that it's set up to easily exploit us consumers. 

Do you really believe that if sales of DLC are really bad because the
majority of people aren’t buying the product due to price, that this won’t, a.,
kill the product, or b., drive down the price?

Honestly I'm not sure a DLC will ever truly flop due to pricing alone. Again people who want to expand their game have no other options will pay what is asked of them, I think The Sims 3 has proved that notion very well. If people are willing to pay for it than their willing to pay for it, I'm not arguing against that.

Is there any evidence to support this?

 

At the end of the day, if it’s not in the favour of the consumer, it
will fail.

Basic economics, the less competition in a market the less tilted that market is in favor of the consumer base. EA holds a monopoly in DLC for BioWare products, so they completely control the market and pricing for said products. And a market does not need to be tilted in favor of the consumer to succeed, to succeed all it needs to do is put out a desirable product at a price people are willing to pay, if people are willing to vastly overpay than it's even better.

Right. But if it’s as long and as deep as WK (i.e. dwarf-like and
similar to a baby’s paddling pool), people won’t buy it. Why? Because they’ll
read a review and see that it isn’t considered as value for money (at $20). – I
know that the obvious answer to this is twofold, 1., that value is subjective,
which is true, and that 2., people don’t read reviews. My answer to 2 is that
you can’t legislate for idiots.

Not necessarily, I thought the same thing with The Sims stuff packs but they sold like hot cakes, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people would spend $20 on a WK size DLC. Again if enough people are willing to pay that tag and it becomes their peak pricing, what is there to stop them?

[AlanC9]

TheMadCat wrote...
Or, I could say you to the beer charging $8 and pick up the beer being charged for $5. If I don't want to pay $5 for RTO, well I'm out of luck. So no, you don't have the same level of choice. This is what I mean when I say no choice, EA has you by the balls and can price as they please because there is no alternative for you. Obviously they'll keep it at a level that will generate their target number but you aren't getting the price you may be getting if their was a second party.

There are all kinds of games, and lots of different beers and bars. How is there less choice in games, again? Sure, you can't get RTO for any price except EA's, but if I want a bottle of Aventinus at the Blind Tiger Ale House, I can't get that for any price except their price either.

If you're declaring that there is no substitute for RTO, or DA content generally, you're asking them to take advantage of you. And they will gladly do this.

[TheMadCat]

AlanC9 wrote...

There are all kinds of games, and lots of different beers and bars. How is there less choice in games, again? Sure, you can't get RTO for any price except EA's, but if I want a bottle of Aventinus at the Blind Tiger Ale House, I can't get that for any price except their price either.

If you're declaring that there is no substitute for RTO, or DA content generally, you're asking them to take advantage of you. And they will gladly do this.

There is plenty of choice when it comes to games I've never disputed that, hell the reason the price has been so stable for so long is because of choice and competition. But we're not talking about games, rather DLC which is exclusive grounds to one developer in their respective IP's. Let's face it, there is no substitute for DA content, it's what EA gives us or nothing. It's not some big secret, EA and BioWare know this and if they want to take advantage they will. That's just the way the system is set up and why it's become so popular as of late, minimal work and no competition to regulate pricing which leads to large profits.

Now I've got no problem with this general idea, they're in business after all to make money. But as I said, if they or any other publisher/developer wants to take advantage of the fact they completely control the DLC market for their respective products they can. We can choose to buy it or not and they do have a window they can operate, but in my opinion judging by the success of The Sims 3 DLC it's quite a large window. 

Like I said in my original post in this thread, DLC can simultaneously be a great thing for both consumer and developer/publisher and on paper I love the idea. But reality is the system is set up so that one single entity controls the market standards which can lead to companies walking all over us without us ever really knowing it.

[Wholetyouinhere]

I'd like to express my genuine sympathy for all the apologists in this thread. You thought you had a leg to stand on -only to have EA/Bioware swipe the rug right out from under you with the indefensibly exploitative Feastday DLC. Never anticipated they'd thoroughly vindicate my argument in less than 24 hours. Say what you will, but that's service.

[darkshadow136]

/Agreed



Outside of Bringing Down The Sky for ME1. DLC's have been a crock.!!!

Whether you are talking about RTO, AAP FOR ME2, or the festival pack for DAO. they have all sucked, it has been a case of EA nickle and diming us to death for worthless content.



Awakenings was fine to a point, not on par as far as quality, detail in story, and immersion factor like in DAO but it was decent. That being said it was not so good as to cost only $10 less then the original DAO. $40 for a expansion that in my opinion has only $20-$25 quality content is a ripoff.



I guess we will see if the DEV's and such will listen to their customers constructive criticism, and make changes for any future content to make it worth our Biowaer points.

[Wholetyouinhere]

I'm trying to convince myself that DLC, as a feature, can be used for good - but I just don't see it. The bottom line is still the bottom line: they aren't producing this stuff out of the good of their hearts. They're trying to make money, and the best way to do so will inevitably involve ever more infuriating practices. They just put a great editorial up on IGN (exceedingly rare occurrence, I know) that deals, in part, with devs locking on-disc content for later purchase by the player. It even talks, briefly, about devs playing with the notion of locking out bosses or endings. I want to say that's worst case scenario stuff, but I would have said the same thing a few years ago about the current state of DLC.

[lordhugorune]

Wholetyouinhere - I've heard people talking about that model for games as well. 'Buy as you play', basically.

I don't see a problem with it, so long as the developers are up front that you are not purchasing a full game when you initially acquire it. In fact there are advantages for users with these 'non-traditional' methods of selling entertainment content. That game you just bought for $10, with $40 worth of additional bosses and levels to unlock, it sucked? Well, thats okay, you're only out of pocket $10, not $50.



Ultimately, the market will decide these things. There have always been problems with the previous methods of pricing games, and with the internet revolutionising entertainment, traditional models that we've grown used to do not always work as well.

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

Its pure greed. this is what happens, whats worse is people tend to not realize when buying these products

1. We are giving power and reason to these companies to continue to exploit the consumers.

2. That these DLC's are products that we dont inherently need to survive.

3 That if we continue down this road, the only people who will be able to play games are going to be the rich and wealthy.

4. That with those 40 bucks we spent on a product that was well worth under $15 we could have bought clothing, food, maybe even a used game or 2.



That being the issue, when does it stop. Lionhead studios is doing something similar with fable 3, and in game shop that requires xbox live points to purchase incredibly useless and non tied to the story or quest items that are constantly added by the devs for 500 to 600 microsoft points a pop! Will EA turn into such a thing as well. Why not? We keep giving them the way, right?



The Prank Pack for DA:O is a perfect example dont you think? Its not even a quest, no gaming value whatsoever. its priced at 160 microsoft points(bull****) its true price is actually 500 microsoft points which is the minimum amount you can purchase unless you use left overs. Whats next? I saw a youtube video on DA:O. It was a joke video of pretend DLC, but it had an example that validates this thread perfectly...(A bit of a paraphrase...) Pay in seven easy instalments and shows the scene atop Ostagars Tower of Ishal. Ogre shows up, and they show queen anora asking for credit card credentials. That will most likely be the future. Which would bring the price to games to what, $20-30 dollars per part of the game. A modern game is $60, if split into 5 pieces and priced like they did Awakenings damn! Thats $100 dollars for a game! Nuff said. Thats were we are headed, and because most people will blindly wave their credit card out and pay for this without realizing what they are doing, nothing...absolutely nothing can be done about this.

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

lordhugorune wrote...

Wholetyouinhere - I've heard people talking about that model for games as well. 'Buy as you play', basically.
I don't see a problem with it, so long as the developers are up front that you are not purchasing a full game when you initially acquire it. In fact there are advantages for users with these 'non-traditional' methods of selling entertainment content. That game you just bought for $10, with $40 worth of additional bosses and levels to unlock, it sucked? Well, thats okay, you're only out of pocket $10, not $50.

Ultimately, the market will decide these things. There have always been problems with the previous methods of pricing games, and with the internet revolutionising entertainment, traditional models that we've grown used to do not always work as well.

Think of it this way then, sure you spent $10, but awakenings was about as big as Orzammar with a few mini quests sprinkled in. What if they charge each piece at about $20 what then?

[ArcanistLibram]

Like most things, DLC is only a problem if it's bad. That said, I'm done with Bioware until either Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2 comes out. The most recent content has just been too underwhelming to justify giving any future DLC or expansions a chance.

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain wrote...

lordhugorune wrote...

Wholetyouinhere - I've heard people talking about that model for games as well. 'Buy as you play', basically.
I don't see a problem with it, so long as the developers are up front that you are not purchasing a full game when you initially acquire it. In fact there are advantages for users with these 'non-traditional' methods of selling entertainment content. That game you just bought for $10, with $40 worth of additional bosses and levels to unlock, it sucked? Well, thats okay, you're only out of pocket $10, not $50.

Ultimately, the market will decide these things. There have always been problems with the previous methods of pricing games, and with the internet revolutionising entertainment, traditional models that we've grown used to do not always work as well.

Think of it this way then, sure you spent $10, but awakenings was about as big as Orzammar with a few mini quests sprinkled in. What if they charge each piece at about $20 what then?

you would pretty much pay about 20(maybe even 40) for Orzammar, Brazillian forest(SP?), mages tower, urn of sacred ashes, denerim, redcliff, ostagar, all origin stories, Lothering. WHat then?

[Lilisia]

Wow this is still going on

I still don't get it. If you don't like, just don't buy it.

And why would people that dont like it want to ruin it for those of us that do like it? Is it because having a choice not to buy it isnt enough, instead everyone else should never have any choice to buy it at all?

Just buy games that don't have any dlc at all I guess.

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

Lilisia wrote...

Wow this is still going on

I still don't get it. If you don't like, just don't buy it.

And why would people that dont like it want to ruin it for those of us that do like it? Is it because having a choice not to buy it isnt enough, instead everyone else should never have any choice to buy it at all?

Just buy games that don't have any dlc at all I guess.

you dont get this thread do you? Its not so much an issue with DLC, hell I love the paper writte idea of it, its more of the fact that they keep jamming down this poo down our osaphagus and expect us not to realize we are being robbed at gun point(i.e Awakenings which was truly worth at maximum 15 dollars instead of 40)

[Zem_]

Wholetyouinhere wrote...
They just put a great editorial up on IGN (exceedingly rare occurrence, I know) that deals, in part, with devs locking on-disc content for later purchase by the player.

The "Mapathetic" article, I assume?  No, great editorials are STILL exceedingly rare.  This isn't one of them.  He is just echoing the same illogical, emotional, entitlement-based arguments you see throughout this thread.

It does not matter when the content was developed or how it was delivered to you.  It really does not.  The only thing that matters is that you were given precisely what you were promised for the money you paid.  That's it.  End of story.  There is no "cheating" going on, as he claims, unless you were deceived.  i.e. Unless you were NOT given what you were promised.

Developers (or publishers, whatever) for their part make the mistake of attempting to downplay the on-disc nature of some DLC, which only ends up making them look even more like they have done something wrong.  Except they still haven't.  Not unless the locked content is something they promised you and then failed to deliver for the original purchase price.

Provided you have all the information about what you're getting for what you're paying there is no one to blame for being disappointed with the purchase but yourself.  Hate the developer if you want.  Refuse to buy their products ever again.  Fine.  But you have no right to claim you were cheated or imply anything unethical went on.   Even if it's something ridiculous like locking the end boss for a micro-payment, so long as you know this going in you have all you need to extend a middle finger at the publisher and take your business elsewhere.  That's the only thing that will ever convince them not to do that sort of thing.

If it sells... then they were "right". 

[Lilisia]

Nope I really dont understand it.

I play Sims 2, I bought tons of expansions for it, and i loved pretty much everyone I spent 1000s of hours playing that game and I never felt cheated at all. Its the same here as far as I can tell. No-one has to buy what they don't like. So what is the harm really?

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

Zem_ wrote...

Wholetyouinhere wrote...
They just put a great editorial up on IGN (exceedingly rare occurrence, I know) that deals, in part, with devs locking on-disc content for later purchase by the player.

The "Mapathetic" article, I assume?  No, great editorials are STILL exceedingly rare.  This isn't one of them.  He is just echoing the same illogical, emotional, entitlement-based arguments you see throughout this thread.

It does not matter when the content was developed or how it was delivered to you.  It really does not.  The only thing that matters is that you were given precisely what you were promised for the money you paid.  That's it.  End of story.  There is no "cheating" going on, as he claims, unless you were deceived.  i.e. Unless you were NOT given what you were promised.

Developers (or publishers, whatever) for their part make the mistake of attempting to downplay the on-disc nature of some DLC, which only ends up making them look even more like they have done something wrong.  Except they still haven't.  Not unless the locked content is something they promised you and then failed to deliver for the original purchase price.

Provided you have all the information about what you're getting for what you're paying there is no one to blame for being disappointed with the purchase but yourself.  Hate the developer if you want.  Refuse to buy their products ever again.  Fine.  But you have no right to claim you were cheated or imply anything unethical went on.   Even if it's something ridiculous like locking the end boss for a micro-payment, so long as you know this going in you have all you need to extend a middle finger at the publisher and take your business elsewhere.  That's the only thing that will ever convince them not to do that sort of thing.

If it sells... then they were "right". 

So I suppose wou find it reasonable to pay $40 dollars for a new segment to your life? How about I sell you a 5th of your child hood for idk say $50. How about I sell you love and relationships for 5-10 dollars. Or how about I lock your childhood memories which you already knew of and charge you 15 bucks for it? Of course you wouldnt want that, because you were promised a full and "Complete" experience of your life, right? So why should I care? Wait how about I sell you your belongings again which you had already owned for about another 10 bucks. Is that reasonable? No, well thats pretty much what they are doing. They promise you a complete product, nothing excempt, yet Stone Prisoner which was part of the game cost 15 dollars, its full of glitches, stuff that was promised was taken away such as the human commoner story. Basically we blindly bought without seeing the truth in our eyes, they love to watch us make our wittle wallets cry.

[Tasmac]

Wholetyouinhere wrote...

I'm nominating downloadable content as the biggest crock of this gaming generation. Used to be I'd buy a game and immediately download whatever add-ons were available. Figured I'd bought this sweet game, so how I could I go wrong buying more of it? Then I actually played the stuff. Ug.

Awakenings is hardly the worst culprit, but it is definitely in line with what we've seen from just about every other developer so far: extremely short and unpolished content costing some unacceptable fraction of the original purchase price. Feels like games cost 20-30% more before you even unwrap them.

It's all so far removed from what was promised/advertised for this "feature". Maybe I'm just imagining things, but didn't they bill DLC as an awesome way for devs to continue and expand their games after release? It sounded great for players - like our favorite games would never end, right?

That's an exaggeration, of course, but you catch my drift. At the very worst, it seemed like a GOOD thing. Sure, some devs would float garbage on occasion, and they'd be rightly mocked and ridiculed by everyone else... I hoped. Presently? You can count the responsible devs who put actual time and effort into their appropriately-priced DLC on one amateur firework enthusiast's hand.

Long story, short: I'm tired of feeling 100% bilked out of my money by this industry's latest "great" idea, and it pains me that maybe my favorite remaining studio (yes, Bioware) seems to be front of the line. Probably not their fault; this insulting nonsense bears the fingerprints of big publishers. Still, it's disappointing - and I'm done DLing.

actually I think the biggest "crock of our generation" is monthy fees for Games like WOW! you buy the game then ya pay every month to play it.. then when the server goes down you have a game that ya paid for and cant play.
On DLC if ya dont like what the content has to offer then dont get it. It doesnt take away from playing the origonal
and if you do get the content you get cool stuff or longer playing time.....dont see your point