323 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

TheMadCat wrote...

DLC can be a great thing when it's not abused. Things like Knights of the Nine and Point Lookout were great pieces of content and priced pretty reasonable, GTA 4 supposedly has some good DLC options as well. Adding content and simultaneously adding shelf life to a game are great on the consumer end and it's a great way for companies to make some killer profit as it's incredibly cheap to make a DLC.

The problem is DLC does tend to get abused and the reason for this is there is no market competition. No one is competing against BioWare's DLC so they are free to set the price to whatever they feel people are willing to pay, and in this digital dollar era peoples perception of value is incredibly low so there is plenty of breathing room for them to inflate. The principle of DLC is great, my favorite games getting extended for several years with great pieces of content, whether big or small and a chance for the developers to recoup profit after spending insane amounts on development and advertising. But it's become an avenue of abuse for a lot publishers/developers, taking advantage of a competitor less market and the digital dollar era.

This would be a lot more convincing if there was some sort of coherent definition of  "abuse" attached.Clearly it can't be defined by what the market is willing to bear, or the DLC wouldn't sell. So what's your definition?

[Lilisia]

Ok. But... if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.

I'm still not sure how it is a bad thing.

[13Dannyboy13]

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.

[the_one_54321]

Lilisia wrote...
Ok. But... if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.
I'm still not sure how it is a bad thing.

And I certainly don't buy it. The issue is to convince other gamers not to buy it either, so that they develoopers will stop making it, and put their resources into things that are worth while.

[MonkeyChief117]

It really depends on the game. Dlc varies between developers and genres. DA dlc varies from average to great imo. GTA4 has 2 great dlc packs, as does oblivion (imo). Other games (notably fpshooters) suffer from far worse dlc.
People also tend to overhype dlcs only to be disappointed in the end - but that isn't the developers fault.

edit: Fallout 3 had good dlc aswell!

Modifié par MonkeyChief117, 31 mars 2010 - 07:13 .

[yullyuk]

simple answer for the poster, dont like it, dont buy it, if your curious wait for reviews or other peoples opinions before buying

[the_one_54321]

yullyuk wrote...
simple answer for the poster, dont like it, dont buy it, if your curious wait for reviews or other peoples opinions before buying

Read my response, above.

[13Dannyboy13]

Lilisia wrote...

Ok. But... if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.

I'm still not sure how it is a bad thing.

The bad thing is that the time is spent on DLC and not other things like actually fixing the game.
I've been patient, but the fact that there has been a few DLC and an expansion released and nothing done at all to fix the bugs bothers me. I mean is it wrong to want dex to work five months after buying the game? They didn't even put the fix in the "patch" for the expansion, which didn't even include previous fixes already made. If all their effort is going to DLC no one is fixing the game as is evident from the complete lack of fixes after five months.

[ModerateOsprey]

Lilisia wrote...

I don't understand how that can be true.

It is a question of value. Making content available for download makes loads of sense for all sorts of reasons, from saving physical resources to the pure convenience of it. It is how it can potentially be abused that is the problem. I mentioned an issue I was having further up. I paid for DLC and I can play it, my son can't in his gamer profile.

There has been instances where we have got DLC under his name and then he comes and asks me if he can have a weapon pack, for example. How much son? XYZ points dad. I do the calculations and I am paying a tenner for a couple of virtual rifles on top of what I paid for the game. That is on top of the fact, I bought 2 games, so we can play co-op and then multi-player doesn't work because we don't have the same content installed!. What happens when next week, he wants a set of sunglasses for one of his characters in another game. the cost can be the same as a set of real sunglasses - cheap ones, for sure! then some more DLC comes out for the original game, but this one is 20 quid...ad nauseum.

This issue is affecting the entire global content industry both traditional and digital, but it is in the games industry where charging for content is being cracked (Yorkshire slang - sorry) exploited most effectively

I believe there could, potentially, come a point where there is simply no choice, you sign in for the long term or you don't play.

Thankfully, I don't believe the game industry is riddled with black-hearted cynics and I think it really matters to them that players feel that they have fair value, but there is a fair amount of experimentation going on and the tone that is coming across to me is beginning to feel one-sided.

Modifié par ModerateOsprey, 31 mars 2010 - 07:22 .

[Lilisia]

I did buy them and enjoyed them a lot. Well, actually I think the Shale one was free, but I bought the other two. I liked Wardens Keep a lot, that creepy castle is a really fun area, you can take Dog along and pretend its a Scooby Doo mystery And the Return to Ostagar, well, that was good and quite touching with the king and everything although it could have been a little bigger maybe. As I said they aren't perfect but they are really good in my opinion anyway.



I don't get the argument really, its like saying expansion packs are a bad thing. But we've had expansion packs for years now and they havent destroyed the game industry. I don't see how dlc will either.

[Yukon Jake]

 I like DLC quite a bit.  Sure, some are better than others, but for the most part it lets you "keep the story going".

The people who don't care for DLC seem to be saying that the product received does not justify the price.

Price is a funny thing.  If my income was barely covering my expenses leaving me with a fraction to spend on entertainment, I might be more critical about my entertainment expenditures.  Conversely, if I have a 6 figure job and a low debt to income ratio the price of most DLC is a drop in the bucket.

As long as Bioware/EA, and others, can turn a profit without losing the longterm respect of their customer base DLC will be made available.  Considering the overwhelming success of the last two titles released during a global recession I'd say that Bioware/EA is giving the customer base what they want.  That is with the exception of their n00b marketing department disenfranchising the non-US customer base by making US only items and special auction events.

[Lilisia]

Sorry my last post was aimed at the one before, I don't type very fast



Dannyboy - I see the point about patches I hadn't thought about that before, I see your point.



Moderate - yep, I understand that too about the multiplayer. That would be really annoying.

[ModerateOsprey]

Lilisia wrote....

Moderate - yep, I understand that too about the multiplayer. That would be really annoying.

Hehe, yes it is

[Yukon Jake]

The bad thing is that the time is spent on DLC and not other things like actually fixing the game.

You presume there is only one team working on the game.  How many art related bugs have you seen in the game?  Not many I'd guess.  So why not put your art and animation people to work making new content while your database team fix database relationships, funny numbers, and turn out patches?

Yes, eventually you will pull the patch making people off making patches to fill in the guts of the new content, but by that time many of the glaring bugs will have been addressed.

Modifié par Yukon Jake, 31 mars 2010 - 07:36 .

[DutchClark]

If DLC is relatively over-priced in comparison to the cost of the full game, that's probably because the original game is relatively under-priced when considering the amount of content included it contains.

[the_one_54321]

Lilisia wrote...
I don't get the argument really, its like saying expansion packs are a bad thing. But we've had expansion packs for years now and they havent destroyed the game industry. I don't see how dlc will either.

Expansion packs were a step down from sequels but were still fairly decent in a lot of cases. DLC is a further step down, and they lead to even further steps down. It's a slipery slope, and at some point you have to stop and say "no."

[Yukon Jake]

DutchClark wrote...

If DLC is relatively over-priced in comparison to the cost of the full game, that's probably because the original game is relatively under-priced when considering the amount of content included it contains.

Awakenings was priced quite high for what you got in comparison to the original game.  The reasons they did this are a mystery, but you can speculate using some basic marketing principles.

1. Bioware's cost per unit sold was far lower for Origins because they likely printed many more units.
2. Not every Origins owner is going to pick up awakenings.
3. An hour of development time has an expected $ of return associated with it.  I'm guessing that the development time ran over what was originally projected.

I really thought it was a $25-$30 (US) value.  Am I going to nerd rage about the extra $10?  Nah, I think Bioware puts out some good stuff, so I don't mind the extra tip so much.

[Lilisia]

I think paying all the actors to do the voices must be pretty expensive too.

[Yukon Jake]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Expansion packs were a step down from sequels but were still fairly decent in a lot of cases. DLC is a further step down, and they lead to even further steps down. It's a slipery slope, and at some point you have to stop and say "no."

The premise of your argument is that an expansion and DLC are "a step down".  I'm not sure what you mean by that.  The strength of your argument is based on the validity of your premise, so could you provide some further detail as to what you mean?

Step down in quality?
Amount of play time?
Amount of time to develop?
Price?
Step down an actual ladder?

What?

[Lilisia]

Don't mention ladders!!



It makes me think of "Shall I get you a ladder so you can get off my back". I hated that.

[AlanC9]

I think he means a worse cash / playing time ratio.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
I think he means a worse cash / playing time ratio.

It's cash vs game content, which doesn't specifically have to be play time. There are lots of attributes you can asign to game content. The basics of it is just how much "game" is in the game.

[Viglin]

Wow, never seen a "moaning about DLC NOT forced on people" thread before.



I do find the OPs forum name amusing thou.....

[ModerateOsprey]

Yukon Jake wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Expansion packs were a step down from sequels but were still fairly decent in a lot of cases. DLC is a further step down, and they lead to even further steps down. It's a slipery slope, and at some point you have to stop and say "no."

The premise of your argument is that an expansion and DLC are "a step down".  I'm not sure what you mean by that.  The strength of your argument is based on the validity of your premise, so could you provide some further detail as to what you mean?

Step down in quality?
Amount of play time?
Amount of time to develop?
Price?
Step down an actual ladder?

What?

I took it to mean something like:

DAO > DA:A > RtO, Shale, etc, > single weapon, etc.

[Lilisia]

Well, for myself, I played Warden's Keep three times now, on three charcters, and it took maybe two hours each time. So I guess six hours or so. And then I used some of the equipment from there a long time afterwards... I have no idea how long really. I'll be going there again with my new character soon. I got a lot of fun out of it, I dont feel that I was cheated at all.



And Shale I used her on my whole first game after I got her and that took me 99 hours to finish, so that was definitely worth it - and she is extremely funny with some of the comments she makes when travelling.