323 réponses à ce sujet

[Zem_]

Tasmac wrote...
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.

No, the biggest crock of our generation is text messaging plans.

[Tasmac]

roflmao

[Zem_]

TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain wrote...
How about I sell you love and relationships for 5-10 dollars.

I'd say I'm in the wrong part of town.  

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.

It really isn't.  You don't own every bit of the software just because it's on a disc in your possesion.  What you paid for is a license to use part of that software.  That's how this works.  The game companies did not invent the idea of software licensing nor were they the first to deliver software with locked options on physical media.  Again, provided you're made fully aware of what portions of the software you're being allowed to use for what price... you have no legal argument regarding ownership and none of your ridiculous analogies about things I own applies.  

I'd say "nice try" but it really wasn't.

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.

DAO is a complete game.  I should know.  I played it and completed it.  I was not at any point prevented from completing the game and told to pay-up to continue.  Stone Prisoner is included if you buy the retail game new.  This is made clear on the website. If it's not on the box, then used purchasers have a legitimate complaint, which I suppose is what the Gamestop lawsuit is about, no?

[ijustwananame1]

TheMadCat wrote...
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.

I agree. But, in this case … we’ve already established that there’s no
other DLC RPG in DAO’s league. So you’re left with noise.

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.

Right.

I worded it badly.

What I mean is that people aren’t necessarily expecting a freebie. They’re
expecting a fair price.

You offer them that fair price and they will take it.

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.

I think you’ve misunderstood my point.

My point was that the price of the DLC is so low, in terms of whatever
it is the majority of people do for a living and what they pay for mild
entertainment, that it’s as simple as this:

“Do I order a large pizza tonight, or do I buy Bioware’s DLC?”

That’s the economic decision you’re making.

Some people are making it sound akin to buying a house.

My point in this regard has nothing to do with competition, but rather
deals with the economic issues (I can’t believe I just typed that in regard to
a purchase of around 4 Pounds in value…) surrounding it.

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.

Right.

But there are several issues here:

Firstly, is the company hosing us? We don’t know. We don’t know the
economics of a games studio. Anything we “know” is a best guest.

Secondly, your feeling that you’re potentially being hosed comes from
your own, subjective, feeling as to how much it’s worth. … which is … well,
subjective.

Finally, we can potentially get hosed every day if we show any kind of
brand loyalty. My favorite cigarettes are more expensive than their rivals. My
personal favorite PC manufacturer is considerably more expensive than their
rivals. My MP3 player is more expensive than the rest. All have competition.
Why do I pay the premium? Because they’re the best.

My point is, that we make our choice to buy Bioware games. Therefore,
we make the choice to enter into a market in which Bioware is the leader
(in our view) and therefore, by economics alone, stands out from the morass.

i.e. Bioware, because of their reputation, can charge a little more.

But that’s natural. Given that they’re a superior brand. Just like my
PC manufacturer.

Now, their DLC has clearly upset some people. But, just like any other
brand, the company will either reduce prices, or stop.

And … above all … there’s little evidence that they are actually intentionally
hosing us.

The gist of my posts isn't that DLC is overprices, rather that
it's set up to easily exploit us consumers. 

Right, but to some people, that might sound like paranoia.

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.

Which might suggest that pricing isn’t an issue? Beyond the vocal
minority.

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. So we’re rapidly coming around to the point at which we can
agree pricing isn’t an issue? Because people, at least on this site, are
clearly buying it…


And I stand by my point that, unless people buy the product, i.e.
enough people feel the price is fair, then the DLC will die.

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?

But there’s no evidence to support what you’re getting at.


It’s a personal choice, yes some people will buy 2 hours of gameplay
for $20.


Personally, I think that’s ridiculously overpriced.

I feel that example’s pretty extreme.


At the end of the day, Coke could start charging $10 a can … would they
do well? No.

[purplesunset]

While some companies have sunk that low (under the helm of the big publishers), I do not think Bioware has reached that point as yet.

Dragon age on the disk is a complete game with a ton of content, in my opinion.

DLC is a different issue though.I think Bioware is in an "in transition" stage, where they are feeling things out with their fans (this was especially evident with the recent countdown timer issue).

My advice: LISTEN to what your fans are saying during this "testing the waters" stage:


Don't just sweep feedback under the rug.

Don't just lock threads at the drop of a hat or dismiss posts by your most vocal fans as "an extreme fringe".

Don't unceremoniously dump threads into "Off topic" where they can be safely ignored by Bioware employees (remember the mass effect DRM fallout?)


I guarantee you that the people with the most emotional investments are your true biggest fans. They're just waiting for you to re-establish trust so that we can blindly buy anything you offer. As it is now, DLC gives many of us cause for concern, so we temper our trust accordingly.

Modifié par purplesunset, 02 avril 2010 - 04:39 .

[CybAnt1]

Again it's a great concept. The question is delivery.



People want their expansions and sequels fast, but then **** & moan (and rightly so) when the fast delivery means bugs and glitches. The truth is a game developer really needs about 2 years to work on a sequel that truly touches the game engine proper and updates it, and about 6 mos. to a year to work on a decent quality expansion. Now of course things are running concurrently and development may have started earlier than you think so it's hard to gauge this. I think it's too soon to be releasing DA 2 in 2/2011, but ... not if they already started work on it in 2/2009.



Anyway ... so what do you give players to tide them over while they wait for expacs & sequels? Encourage replayability while they're waiting? #1 player made mods through a toolset. But let's face it. How many player made "alternative" campaigns are done & ready to go? I really only know of one player made mod that adds actual play to the game (Alley of Murders). If it's hard for a development team to make content, it's even harder for an individual fan with limited resources. The bottom line is I can replay DA:O with a new companion someone made, player made changes to game mechanics, custom items, etc. but ultimately not much new content.



#2 ... you give them mini morsels to chew on while waiting through online micro payments ... DlC. I don't think the concept is crock. It's not. We can argue about whether the pricing model is right, and we can argue about the specifics of implementation. I have always been a bit confused about the "virtual currency" to do so (this "buy points" stuff, but apparently it's so they can support multiple actual currencies.)



Warden's Keep IMHO was enjoyable .... too bad you can't take "it" (its items/abilities) with you into DA:A. And yes so you had to pay to get a party chest, but it's not like there weren't five mods out there that either gave you a new area with a party chest, or put one in your party camp. (Better yet, most of the mods SORTED your stuff.)



Return to Ostagar ... was it too short? I didn't think so. It's stuff to do, yes its new items, yes it even adds to the lore and backstory of the game (much as Warden's Keep does) and ties up loose ends. I always wondered what they did with Cailan's body ... And you could take it with you ... to A. And I didn't think it was overpriced, either.



The weirdest thing? Probably my favorite DlC was the one I didn't pay for ... Stone Prisoner.

[TheMadCat]

Right.

But there are several issues here:

Firstly, is the company hosing us? We don’t know. We don’t know the
economics of a games studio. Anything we “know” is a best guest.

Haven't I said I don't know and we can only guess like, a dozen times already.

Secondly, your feeling that you’re potentially being hosed comes from
your own, subjective, feeling as to how much it’s worth. … which is … well,
subjective.

Yes and no. Indeed everything is subjective, going back to my extreme example if someone bought WK for $20 and was happy with the purcahse well than hard to make an argument that that person was hosed. But in this context I'm using the term in refrence to the fact we may not be getting the best deal we could be getting. You may be happy with paying $5, would you not be happier paying $3 given the company profits from both.

Finally, we can potentially get hosed every day if we show any kind of
brand loyalty. My favorite cigarettes are more expensive than their rivals. My
personal favorite PC manufacturer is considerably more expensive than their
rivals. My MP3 player is more expensive than the rest. All have competition.
Why do I pay the premium? Because they’re the best.

We can hosed every day and reality is we do. But just because we do doesn't mean I'm ready to break out the KY, pulling down my pants and bending over ready to take it. If you're willing to pay the premium tax that hey, go for it. Hell I pay it all the time (What can I say, I love the finer things in life), but at least there remain options in the cases I and others don't want to pay it. In this instance, not so.

My point is, that we make our choice to buy Bioware games. Therefore,
we make the choice to enter into a market in which Bioware is the leader
(in our view) and therefore, by economics alone, stands out from the morass.

i.e. Bioware, because of their reputation, can charge a little more.

But that’s natural. Given that they’re a superior brand. Just like my
PC manufacturer.

Now, their DLC has clearly upset some people. But, just like any other
brand, the company will either reduce prices, or stop.

Why do they have to either reduce prices or have to stop? Most typical microtransaction style DLC costs peanuts to make as they go in expecting minimal sales so it's not like they break the bank producing them (seriously, how many units of Feast Day do you think they have to sell to break even.), and there is certainly no encouragement for them to reduce pricing as they remain the sole entity controling the market.

And … above all … there’s little evidence that they are actually intentionally
hosing us.

Indeed, just as there is little evidence to support that they aren't. In the end we're both speculating, but speculating is fun.

Right, but to some people, that might sound like paranoia.

Don't have to tell me that, I'm the one writing this nonsense.
But, reality is corporations don't care about you and me, they don't care for our input or our financial situations. They care about their companies value and their majority share holders, if they can improve stock value by stepping on our toes than that's exactly what they'll do. It's simply a fact of corporations and certainly not limited to the DLC aspect of video games, it's just that the DLC market is perfectly set up to exploit it's consumers. Paranoid, if you want to view it as such. I'm not saying it's happening, I'm saying it's set up so that is can indeed happen.

Which might suggest that pricing isn’t an issue? Beyond the vocal
minority.

Never claimed pricing was an issue, people will pay for what they want, demand and supply. I'm not trying to be a killjoy, if people want to purchase it and enjoy than so be it it's their money not mine. But as companies continune to squeeze out more for less with every new piece of DLC it will eventually get to a point where I may view none of the content worthy of the tag attached, and unfortunatly that worries me and more and more of a game's enjoyment stems from DLC and additional content. Mind you this is not an exclusive argument on DA:O, indeed there was plenty there for me to enjoy. But my fear is that they begin moving to a skeleton design on the base games and adding the muscle and meat through DLC much as publishers have done with many titles.

And I stand by my point that, unless people buy the product, i.e.
enough people feel the price is fair, then the DLC will die.

Why is that? As I said it's incredibly cheap to make and easy to return profit and people tend to undervalue things when it comes to online transactions. There is no legit competition for them to fall to and no price to compare against. The company controls the field and while they can't step off of it they certainly can push it to the brink.

But there’s no evidence to support what you’re getting at.

Eh? If people are willing to pay it they'll pay it.

Personally, I think that’s ridiculously overpriced.

I feel that example’s pretty extreme.


At the end of the day, Coke could start charging $10 a can … would they
do well? No.

Oh yeah it's an extreme example mostly done to more clearly illustrate situations.

To the coke comment, why is it they would stop paying $10 a can? Is it because it costs $10 a can or because they can still get a pepsi for $1, because the market standard has dictated that $10 is to much? If coke bought every soft drink company in the world tonight and tomorrow coke was the only thing you could buy and they set the new market standard at $10 do you think people wouldn't eventually accept it and buy it?

Unfortunatly peoples "needs" (Use this term loosely) and desires outwiegh cost. It's why people such as you and I are willing to pay the premium tax on our favorite items, it's why people are willing to spend oodles of cash on things they enjoy such as The Sims franschise. I may say something is ridiciously overpriced and as a result I may be in what is deemed the "vocal minority", they may charge $20 for the next piece of WK style DLC, you may complain and you may also be lumped in with the "vocal minority." 

We've all grossly overpaid for things we want and buyers remorse is not some uncommon state of mind. Desires and impluse outweigh logic and restraint. If you really want that new piece of DLC that price tag may not be seen as much as an obstacle, after all whats $10 to your enjoyment. That's the true beauty of DLC, it deals with such small numbers that people are willing to easily brush it to the side. $3, $5, $10, spend more on a cup of coffee right, who gives a damn it's more DA:O content. You say it's only $5, and that's fine, personally I choose to sit back and wonder rather than say yeah, sure here's $5. Are companies taking us for a hike, what would a market with competition dictate the price to be. We don't know if companies are profiting by the skin of their teeth or are netting 700% on these pieces. I'm not expecting developers to work for free, but I also don't like the idea of abusing the way the system is set up. Are they? I don't know, neither do you.

And lets remember all this $3 here and $5 there adds up, we're at $15 for the three DLC's and you get about two, maybe three hours of additional play and a handful of new items.Looking back at The Sims 2 I believe it comes to around $350-$400 over four years if you purchase everything there is to purchase. Worth it? Enterily up to each individual and they are in no way wrong if they feel it was worth it just as no one is wrong if they feel it isn't. Hell if people ae willing to pay $20 for WK than so be it.

The gist of my annoyingly long rants is this. It's not about the price of current DLC or the state of EA/BioWare or the content they're developing. It's about the general situation and the fact system is set to allow the consumers to be taken advantage of be it from EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Edios, 2K, so and and so forth. Low numeric values, no compeition, minimal effort and cost in producing product, sold through a medium where most consumers undervalue currency, and plays off the desire and entertainment factors. It's a corporations wet dream, DLC is EA/BioWare's Adriana Lima or Natalie Portman or whatever hot man/woman gets your jollies going. Companies have the ability to constantly kick you in the head with steel toed boots and you'd never even know because you're in a coma, completely unaware to what is going on in their world. Companies will continue to seek and exploit this literal gold mine; games more heavily relying on DLC to fill the game, games and stories told through episodic means rather than a single project, monthly fees in exchange for frequent content updates.

Am I being paranoid, perhaps. I'm not one for doomsday and worse case scenarios but these are all real ideas still on the drawing board as popular games are used to find that threshold. DLC could be one of the five greatest things to ever happen to gaming, it grants large benefits to both consumers and developers/publishers. But it's easy to take advantage of as we're essentialy asked to trust that this is indeed a reasonable price for the product and the directiont hey've gone is the right one. Ultimately it is what it is though, view my thoughts as paranoia based nonsense, slightly interesting, maybe true, or hit the nail on the head. Time I suppose will bear all, hopefully for the better and not the worst.

[13Dannyboy13]

Zem_ wrote...
DAO is a complete game.  I should know.  I played it and completed it.  I was not at any point prevented from completing the game and told to pay-up to continue.  Stone Prisoner is included if you buy the retail game new.  This is made clear on the website. If it's not on the box, then used purchasers have a legitimate complaint, which I suppose is what the Gamestop lawsuit is about, no?

I hardly find the game to be "complete" when there are game breaking bugs that can easily stop you from finishing the game. I mean ranged attacks are totally gimped from the dex bug, save corruption can take away hundreds of hours you put into the game, the bug in orzamaar can ruin the main story quest there making it so you can never finish the game, and there are a lot more. If it were just small bugs then sure it would be ok, but these types of bugs are just unacceptable, especially after six months when they've done nothing but rush out more buggy DLC and a buggy expansion, and not a dam thing to actually fix the game. I consider it broken because it does not work like it is supposed to, like it is stated right in the manual for the game. The fact that they keep rushing out dlc without actually fixing anything leads me to believe that they simply care about getting our money and nothing else, I mean there's not even any communication. Simply saying "we're looking into" for six months while pushing out more DLC to take our money is just taking advantage of the loyalty of the fanbase, who for the most part believe that they will fix this game.

[AlanC9]

Zem_ wrote...
  Stone Prisoner is included if you buy the retail game new.  This is made clear on the website. If it's not on the box, then used purchasers have a legitimate complaint, which I suppose is what the Gamestop lawsuit is about, no?

Just for clarity, the box says that it includes a downloadable character and quest with a "one time use code available with full retail purchase."  How dumb would someone have to be to think it would work with a used copy?

[darkshadow136]

For those interested when it comes to this topic. I suggest you read the may issue of PC Gamer magazine. The title of the article is "Why has EA screwed up Dragon Age's DLC so badly ?". They also have a review on Awakenings which was fair, but nicer than I would be on it.

[AlanC9]

TheMadCat wrote...
To the coke comment, why is it they would stop paying $10 a can? Is it because it costs $10 a can or because they can still get a pepsi for $1, because the market standard has dictated that $10 is to much? If coke bought every soft drink company in the world tonight and tomorrow coke was the only thing you could buy and they set the new market standard at $10 do you think people wouldn't eventually accept it and buy it?

Actually, I don't think people would. At some point soft drinks themselves just aren't worth it. I think that point would be way below $10. I'd be surprised if you could get people willing to pay more than, say, $4. You've really got to stop overstraining your metaphors.

We've all grossly overpaid for things we want and buyers remorse is not some uncommon state of mind. Desires and impluse outweigh logic and restraint. If you really want that new piece of DLC that price tag may not be seen as much as an obstacle, after all whats $10 to your enjoyment. That's the true beauty of DLC, it deals with such small numbers that people are willing to easily brush it to the side. $3, $5, $10, spend more on a cup of coffee right, who gives a damn it's more DA:O content. You say it's only $5, and that's fine, personally I choose to sit back and wonder rather than say yeah, sure here's $5. Are companies taking us for a hike, what would a market with competition dictate the price to be. We don't know if companies are profiting by the skin of their teeth or are netting 700% on these pieces. I'm not expecting developers to work for free, but I also don't like the idea of abusing the way the system is set up. Are they? I don't know, neither do you.

I'm still waiting for an actual definition of abuse.

[AlanC9]

darkshadow136 wrote...

For those interested when it comes to this topic. I suggest you read the may issue of PC Gamer magazine. The title of the article is "Why has EA screwed up Dragon Age's DLC so badly ?". They also have a review on Awakenings which was fair, but nicer than I would be on it.

Could you summarize the key points? I'm not likely to see a copy for a while.

[TheMadCat]

For those interested when it comes to this topic. I suggest you read
the may issue of PC Gamer magazine. The title of the article is "Why
has EA screwed up Dragon Age's DLC so badly ?". They also have a review
on Awakenings which was fair, but nicer than I would be on it.

Any chance you could give a quick summary of the article?

Actually, I don't think people would. At some point soft drinks
themselves just aren't worth it. I think that point would be way below
$10. I'd be surprised if you could get people willing to pay more than,
say, $4. You've really got to stop overstraining your metaphors.

Err, that wasn't my metaphore. I just rolled with what Ijustwananame gave.

I'm still waiting for an actual definition of abuse.

Main Entry: 1abuse Pronunciation: \\\\\\\\ə-ˈbyüs\\\\\\\\Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French abus, from Latin abusus, from abuti to consume, from ab- + uti to useDate: 15th century
1 : a corrupt practice or custom
2 : improper or excessive use or treatment : misuse
3 obsolete : a deceitful act : deception
4 : language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrily
5 : physical maltreatment

I gave you the definition in context to my argument pages ago, if you want something more simplified and direct there you go. Because there is no direct competition, there is no true mechanism in place to balance the price in favor of the consumer and as consequence it can lead to higher prices, lower quality and can essentially become  price gouging. A snippet from the price gouging page from wiki...

The term is not in widespread use in economic theory but is sometimes used to refer to practices of a coercive monopoly which raises prices above the market rate that would otherwise prevail in a competitive environment. [1]

I mean that sums up the DLC situation pretty well don't you agree? You may not feel as if your getting abused, you may happily pay whatever tag and be completely satisfied with your purchase. But that doesn't negate any possiblity that they are indeed taking advantage of the situation by charging much more for less than competitive market would ever allow.  That to me, is an abuse of the situation.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 02 avril 2010 - 08:39 .

[Zem_]

AlanC9 wrote...
Just for clarity, the box says that it includes a downloadable character and quest with a "one time use code available with full retail purchase."  How dumb would someone have to be to think it would work with a used copy?

You realize this is the country where someone successfully sued after being burned by spilled coffee even though there was a hot beverage warning on the cup, right?

[Haexpane]

DLC was not invented "this generation" so the answer is simply.



No

[darkshadow136]

AlanC9 wrote...

darkshadow136 wrote...

For those interested when it comes to this topic. I suggest you read the may issue of PC Gamer magazine. The title of the article is "Why has EA screwed up Dragon Age's DLC so badly ?". They also have a review on Awakenings which was fair, but nicer than I would be on it.

Could you summarize the key points? I'm not likely to see a copy for a while.

The great questions of our time, such as "will citizens actually pay two greenbacks to clothe their disposable virtual steeds in gleeming mail," have already been answered. Four years after Oblivions release, misfits among us still buy horse armor daily. Despite that inauspicious origin, downloadable content is now a validated commercial model that's proven to be popular with RPG fans. So why has EA screwed up Dragon Age's DLC so badly ?

Providing different preorder incentives to various retailers was a bad omen. Many in-game items bestowed through those offers were overpowered, which rendered much of Dragon Age's magical loot mundane, thus making questing less rewarding. Players had to shell out extra to store items, a feature that should have been included Gratis. Wardens Keep, the first commercial DLC, encumbered camps with a bleating NPC begging for aid. Confirm you're willing to assist the hapless wretch and you will be notified that it's time to open your real world billfold.


It get's worse. The second commercial DLC, Return To Ostagar, has been delayed, released, then retracted and further delayed. When it finally became available, I booted up Dragon Age but it wasn't listed under available DLC, and all my previously loaded DLC had somehow become "unathorized". I sent an e-mail to EA support and was promised a response withing 24 hours, but none was ever delivered. Hundreds of customers seeking a remedy for this issue at the official support site were given an erroneous answer that satisfied only 61 out of 1466 respondents.



Now I will para-phrase the rest of the article it talks about how the Bioware point system is not flexible enough, when buying BP's it forces you to buy more than you need for a DLC, and there is no incentive in reduction of cost to buy a larger package of points. Pc Gamer refers to EA's DLC content, and Bioware point set up as half-baked, ill-considered, bite sized content to the point that that it is to insufficient to lure back players.

In a nutshell EA is EVIL and Bioware was better off without them. " those are my words.!!!

Modifié par darkshadow136, 02 avril 2010 - 08:48 .

[TheMadCat]

Thanks for the summary Dark, seems like a rehash of the usual complaints on EA and the DA:O DLC. Though the last sentence in the first paragraph kind of throws me off, seems like they're making the claim the DLC was a financial screw up rather than a "quality" one and from what has been said it certainly hasn't been a financial screw up.

[Zem_]

TheMadCat wrote...

I mean that sums up the DLC situation pretty well don't you agree? You may not feel as if your getting abused, you may happily pay whatever tag and be completely satisfied with your purchase. But that doesn't negate any possiblity that they are indeed taking advantage of the situation by charging much more for less than competitive market would ever allow.  That to me, is an abuse of the situation.

No, it isn't.   Not all monopolies are illegal or even subject to regulation.  Copyright is essentially a limited form of legal monopoly and that is what applies to this situation.  It's like grumbling about the price of Harry Potter books or something.  You can't claim that because they have a monopoly on the publishing of Harry Potter books, that they are obliged to charge a fair price.   They most certainly are not.

I know you're probably not trying to make a legal argument but your heavy use of anti-trust language is certainly an attempt to imply actual wrong-doing where there is none.  Kind of like using the phrase "price gouging".  Sure, I can call anything price gouging in a broad non-legal sense, but the term is also applied to such practices as charging a lot for essential goods and services in a natural disaster area, which is usually not just unethical but illegal.

[Zem_]

13Dannyboy13 wrote...

I hardly find the game to be "complete" when there are game breaking bugs that can easily stop you from finishing the game....

Quality is not the point I was responding to.  This thread is about DLC and the complaint people make about DLC that was finished prior to launch is that by not including it, the game is incomplete.   This simply isn't true when the DLC in question is entirely optional and in no way prevents completion of the game or leaves out some critical portion of the story.   All of the DAO DLC is very much optional with regards to completion of the main game plot.

I of course agree with you that bugs should be fixed, but that's not what this argument over DLC is really about.

[Fate Elixir]

I hoped the DLC would be a little better too, but I wouldn't go as far to say as it is a disappointment. I will say that on average the prices are too steep however. The only DLC that is worth the money is Warden's Keep.

[TheMadCat]

Zem_ wrote...

No, it isn't.   Not all monopolies are illegal or even subject to regulation.  Copyright is essentially a limited form of legal monopoly and that is what applies to this situation.  It's like grumbling about the price of Harry Potter books or something.  You can't claim that because they have a monopoly on the publishing of Harry Potter books, that they are obliged to charge a fair price.   They most certainly are not.

Not necessarily. The premium tax is not the same as market control. Harry Potter is a world reknowned book, because of it's name it may have a higher price tag is attached. Don't want to pay the higher price? Fine, there are other books whose story is centered around the story of a young wizard. Mind you Harry Potter also has to compete with these similar books so it cannot price it much higher than the market standard without it reflecting in their sales. Want DLC for your Dragon Age title but don't want to pay the price, to bad. What it is is what it's going to be and you either accept it or you don't as there is nothing to compete against it.

I know you're probably not trying to make a legal argument but your heavy use of anti-trust language is certainly an attempt to imply actual wrong-doing where there is none.  Kind of like using the phrase "price gouging".  Sure, I can call anything price gouging in a broad non-legal sense, but the term is also applied to such practices as charging a lot for essential goods and services in a natural disaster area, which is usually not just unethical but illegal.

I see someone has only been reading what they want to read. Where have I ever brought up anti-trust laws? Where have I ever even made the claim any publishers selling DLC has done anything even remotely illegal? Everything they do is perfectly legal, legality has ZERO to do with taking advantage of the situation at hand, which I've never even said they actually do mind you, only that the possibility is there. Price gouging also has a wide variety of meanings, such as the one I posted above. DLC in a coercive monoply, one company controls the creation and distribution of the product and due to domestic and international copyright laws no one else may enter the field without permission from the controling entity of the IP. It is a monoply, it's in microscopic and secluded market but nonetheless it is a monoply and perfectly legal so there is nothing to condem on that standpoint and I am very well aware of the fact, which is why I have never made ANY refrence to it being illegal. It is a controlled market and that allows for far higher prices than an uncontrolled market would ever permit, do you dispute this?

[13Dannyboy13]

TheMadCat wrote...

DLC in a coercive monoply, one company controls the creation and distribution of the product and due to domestic and international copyright laws no one else may enter the field without permission from the controling entity of the IP. It is a monoply, it's in microscopic and secluded market but nonetheless it is a monoply and perfectly legal so there is nothing to condem on that standpoint and I am very well aware of the fact, which is why I have never made ANY refrence to it being illegal. It is a controlled market and that allows for far higher prices than an uncontrolled market would ever permit, do you dispute this?

That's the thing that worries me, there's no competition and they know this so they take advantage of the consumers. I mean look at some of the DLC coming out now, 1200 MS points for a few maps for MW2 it's getting quite ridiculous. I think there needs to be some form of control, but how they would do that is a very difficult problem which really has no answer. But there's no doubt in my mind that they are ruining what could be a great thing for games.

[traversc]

Zem_ wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Just for clarity, the box says that it includes a downloadable character and quest with a "one time use code available with full retail purchase."  How dumb would someone have to be to think it would work with a used copy?

You realize this is the country where someone successfully sued after being burned by spilled coffee even though there was a hot beverage warning on the cup, right?

I hate when people bring up this example.  i mean, honestly, can you at least try to do some research and stop taking everything at face value?  

McD violated the law.  Harm was caused as a result of McD violating the law.  Open. And. Shut. Case. 

[Pocketgb]

The only thing that bums me out about Bioware's current DLC is that it's not up to snuff with what they've achieved in the past. Why can't Zaeed and Katsumi be as in-depth as Shale? Why can't the missions and quests be as awesome as Bring Down the Sky?

It's true that I don't have to buy the DLC they're making...But shouldn't I want to?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 02 avril 2010 - 11:47 .

[Wicked 702]

traversc wrote...

Zem_ wrote...

You realize this is the country where someone successfully sued after being burned by spilled coffee even though there was a hot beverage warning on the cup, right?

I hate when people bring up this example.  i mean, honestly, can you at least try to do some research and stop taking everything at face value?  

McD violated the law.  Harm was caused as a result of McD violating the law.  Open. And. Shut. Case. 

Yeah, I was about to comment on this until I scrolled down and read your post. We actually studied this exact case in my law class a few months back. I was with everyone else, assuming that the person was an idiot for burning himself/herself (can't remember which gender at the moment), but after reading the case study it is 100% clear that McDonalds really was at fault legally........bigtime. The assumptions everyone has about this case are truly false.

/derail