323 réponses à ce sujet

[Yukon Jake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Except that what we have here is:
You recieve 25 gold from sales of your marginally recieved DLC!
Gaming community approves +10!

And then they keep on making the not-so-great DLC. Thing is that there is no such thing as "good" DLC for the prices they are offereing right now, and this is applied all across the board for all developers. It's a way for them to jack up their profit margins for minimal investment, and gamers are just eating it up. That hurts all of we other gamers who recognize that it's just a way to jack up profit margins for minimal invesment.

My wife LOVES the expansion.  I enjoyed it, but would be in the "eating it up" category--I thought it was overpriced.  Still, you can't dismiss the opinion of the people who really liked the content just because the content didn't meet you idea of what it should have been.  There are enough people like my wife to financially substantiate Bioware's efforts.  

If profits continue to increase Bioware will likely expand and possibly turn out content that might be more tuned to your needs.

I wouldn't dismiss ALL DLC.  I would make sure your gaming company receives constructive feedback so that they know what you want.  If there are enough of "you" to make it profitable they'll make what "you" want.

Modifié par Yukon Jake, 31 mars 2010 - 09:32 .

[Yukon Jake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...
Both games and movies are entertainment.

Apples and oranges are both foods.  They still don't compare.

You're talking about cross-media migrations. People shift from one kind of entertainment to another based on prices and offerings, but it's still far more accurate to compare media within their own spheres. Comparing games to movies may give you an idea of what's a better value between movies and games, but it does not give you an idea of what's a better investment between two game price structures. If you want to know whether a game was appropriately priced, you compare it to the content and price of other games, not movies.

I simply disagree with your point, though I do know others that would agree with you.

If I base my decision to make a purchase on the number of $/hour of entertainment a direct relationship between movies and games can be made.  Marketing execs do factor in other forms of entertainment when deriving costs for their particular offering.  If the ratio is way out of whack sales go down-- it's that simple.  YOU may not consider it, but they do.  Trust me

Modifié par Yukon Jake, 31 mars 2010 - 09:33 .

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You haven't talked about it, but it comes up every single time a thread about DLC is started. It's just not accurate. It's both entertainment, yes, but the people who go out to watch a movie are not thinking to themselves "hmmm, maybe I'd get a better value if I bought a game instead." It just doesn't work that way. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Both of them are food, but they just are not the same thing.

Well, maybe Lilisia evaluates everything in terms of pure utility.  That'd be unusual, but not inconceivable. It's certainly more rational than what most people do. Edit: make that extremely unusual. If people really cared about price differentials between different forms of entertainment, TV would have destroyed everything except maybe gaming.

And apples to oranges is a pretty unfortunate metaphor here. People compare apples to oranges all the time -- otherwise, how could you determine which one you want  to eat?

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 mars 2010 - 09:43 .

[the_one_54321]

Yukon Jake wrote...
If I base my decision to make a purchase on the number of $/hour of entertainment a direct relationship between movies and games can be made.

But making a comparison based on only one criteria is just as inaccurate! Length of gameplay is only one facet and one that can be incredibly misleading. MMOs have hundreds upon hundreds of hours of gameplay. Some may argue that's a good thing, but one need only compare a really "good" MMO to a really "awful" one to see the point. The amount of time you spend playing it does not automatically justify the investment. It's about the quality of the content, and that quality can be quantified in  many different ways. As I've said in a couple posts prior to this one it's about how much "game" you actually get in your game. Because of this, it just doesn't have an accurate scale of comparisons with other forms of entertainment.

[ModerateOsprey]

Yukon Jake wrote...

ModerateOsprey wrote...

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.

The point trying to be made is still ambiguous.  One is greater than the other in what context?  I don't fully understand the point the_one_54321 was trying to make.  

Presuming he was talking about the quality of the product in terms of "polished bug free playability", the "amount of play time added to the original game", and the highly subjective "amount of fun to be had" I suppose I'd be inclined to agree that the DA:A expansion was less than DA:O.

In any case, a compnay shouldn't stop making expansions and items because they are "less than" the original product.  The "No" point the_one_54321was talking about will occur naturally.  Companies will continue to reinvent and market product expansions and in game items as long as revenue returns are greater than production costs modified slightly by the status of company's reputation with their customers.  In Bioware's case their reputation is high.  This might have also been a contributing factor to why DA:A was priced so high--they used a little bit of their high riding rep to generate some liquidity. 

In game terms:
You receive 100 gold for releasing an awesome game!
Gaming community approves +10!

You receive 25 gold from the sales of your less well received expansion!
Gaming community disapproves -5!

Sounds like a net win to me.

Well in business terms, gaining initial approval is a lot easier than gaining back ground from disapproval. I can't speak for One, but he presented a quickly analogy of categorisation that would probably be not  too different from the from what would exist in a product development managers notes. I symbolised it, One expanded on it to show we were 'on the same page'. I agreed with his analogy.

Someone has to set pricing for DLC. Their job is to factor in a whole pile of stuff, including the things you have mentioned like playtime and fun quotient. As I mentioned earlier, the notion of DLC is relatively new to everyone, so there is a lot of experimentation going on.

Using One's model. I have decided I will not buy the appearance pack or the new heavy weapon for ME 2 and I don't send MS points on avatars in XBox live either. But my decisions here isn't that simple. I have got nearly every appearance mod there is in my DA, for free! I would like more appearance options and weapons in ME, but they are lower in importance to playing the game - they are cosmetic. As it happens, my lad got his weapon pack for a game he is playing instead That money didn't go to BW, but a different developer. Now, if BW was to offer me a family licence for DLC, then the purchase may have gone differently.

[Yukon Jake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...
If I base my decision to make a purchase on the number of $/hour of entertainment a direct relationship between movies and games can be made.

But making a comparison based on only one criteria is just as inaccurate! 

I never implied that they did use one criteria.  I simply indicated that such a relationship was viable when your previous argument indicated that it was not.

Modifié par Yukon Jake, 31 mars 2010 - 09:40 .

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
And apples to oranges is a pretty unfortunate metaphor here. People compare apples to oranges all the time -- otherwise, how could you determine which one you want  to eat?

It was more intended as a visual for the reference. To give a mental image. People often decide between eating apples or oranges, true, but they still don't offten think "maybe a game would give me better dollar value than a movie tonight."

[the_one_54321]

Yukon Jake wrote...
I never implied that they did.  I simply indicated that such a relationship was viable when your previous argument indicated that it was not.

Well of course it's viable, but you need to keep things in context. The prices of movies have evolved within their own market, just as the prices of games have evolved within their own markets. There are influences from outside markets as well, but they are just marginal influences and are still parts of different markets. If you compare prices between different markets, invariably you will get skewed and misleading results.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 31 mars 2010 - 09:43 .

[Yukon Jake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...
I never implied that they did.  I simply indicated that such a relationship was viable when your previous argument indicated that it was not.

Well of course it's viable, but you need to keep things in context. The prices of movies have evolved within their own market, just as the prices of games have evolved within their own markets. There are influences from outside markets as well, but they are just marginal influences and are still parts of different markets. If you compare prices between different markets, invariably you will get skewed and misleading results.

But from the perspective of a consumer with X dollars to spend on an entertainment budget the justification to buy Warden's Keep because it's a better value in terms of Entertainment/$ spent is a strong argument provided the quality of entertainment (or amount of fun achieved) doing both activities is comparable.

I understand your points regarding DLC, I just think you happen to be part of a vocal minority.  Bioware is going to go where the money is.  They have built a great deal of consumer capital, and are converting it to liquidity.  When the cash cow dries up the pendulum will swing and you might start getting more of your needs met.

Till then... 

[the_one_54321]

Yukon Jake wrote...
But from the perspective of a consumer with X dollars to spend on an entertainment budget the justification to buy Warden's Keep because it's a better value in terms of Entertainment/$ spent is a strong argument provided the quality of entertainment (or amount of fun achieved) doing both activities is comparable.

I understand your points regarding DLC, I just think you happen to be part of a vocal minority.  Bioware is going to go where the money is.  They have built a great deal of consumer capital, and are converting it to liquidity.  When the cash cow dries up the pendulum will swing and you might start getting more of your needs met.

Till then...

And our disagreement has been reconciled. There was nothing in there that I find unacceptable.

I just think it's a bad thing that we are the vocal minority. I think the "paying majority" is causing harm to the rest of us.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 31 mars 2010 - 09:53 .

[ModerateOsprey]

 FWIW, I think you are both right. you are just coming from different perspectives. Earlier

Lilisia wrote...
Can I compare entertainment to entertainment? 
And seriously I have never talked about this anywhere else before, how would I know what other people have said other times? We were talking about how many hours of entertainment come from a DLC. More than a movie 

This has validity. I do comparisons like this all the time. do I want to go the pub or stay in and play a game or do both by taking my lappy to the pub - sorry 

This is a decision along the lines of what how am I going to spend my time/money. Then a comparison between a game, movie, etc makes sense.

However, One is trying to get underneath to a more objective view of how DLC is priced from the perspective of the gaming industry itself and whether it is genuinely good value. I think One, quite rightly says we shouldn't muddy the waters of seeing this by looking at other media types. Games are different.

Modifié par ModerateOsprey, 31 mars 2010 - 09:58 .

[Lilisia]

Wow my head is spinning with all this now...
Wait am I a bad person because I bought something I liked?
How did that happen? Oh no, I have destroyed computer gaming forever?!!?
I knew I shouldn't have clicked that button but it was sooo tempting...

[Yukon Jake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

And our disagreement has been reconciled. There was nothing in there that I find unacceptable.

I just think it's a bad thing that we are the vocal minority. I think the "paying majority" is causing harm to the rest of us.

I'm sure the Republicans in Congress would empathize with you there.  It would be nice to live in a Utopian society where we all got what we wanted.

Here's hoping Bioware doesn't kill the cash cow outright during the milking!

[ModerateOsprey]

lisakover wrote...

some cr*p

F*ckw*t

[TheMadCat]

AlanC9 wrote...


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?

Abuse is simply abuse, to take an opportune advantage at the expense of others. There is no market created standard in pricing of DLC as there is with full retail products, there is no competition with other companies to keep prices at a stable level. Because of this developers have the capability to mark it for whatever they want and due to the lack of competition consumers have no other options, it's either pay it or go home.

Of course they still have to mark it at a price that will generate a targeted number of consumers and as consumers it is still in our hand whether we purchase it or not. This is why I eluded to the digital dollar era though, currency is undervalued by most consumers when it comes to online transactions and there have been actual studies on this, I'll see if I can dig a few up if need to be. Because of this undervaluing that goes on by typical consumers it does give them a little more ground to work with before reaching the tipping point.

Now I'm not ever expecting anything completely outrageous such as an Warden's Keep size DLC for $30. The problem is "value" is incredibly subjective as I'm sure there are people who would have paid $30 for Warden's Keep and felt it was worth every penny. This is why I didn't call out any particular comapnies or DLC's, rather I simply eluded to the fact that the ingrdients are there for companies to take advantage of and abuse the unique situation of DLC. It can be a great thing and certainly not the biggest crock of this generation, but it can also be used to sacrifice quality and charge more then a competitive enviorment would allow.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 31 mars 2010 - 10:01 .

[ModerateOsprey]

Lilisia wrote...

Wow my head is spinning with all this now...
Wait am I a bad person because I bought something I liked?
How did that happen? Oh no, I have destroyed computer gaming forever?!!?
I knew I shouldn't have clicked that button but it was sooo tempting...

lol - very bad. Now you have to leave the room for a while 

[weyrleader]

arrrrgh! Here we go AGAIN!!!!



GIve a mouse a cookie..........and he's going to want to friggin factory it was made in....FOR FREE!!!!

[Lilisia]

If I have killed the gaming industry by buying a couple of DLCs as part of the paying majority, I'll tell you this....



The shoe industry is doomed!!

[the_one_54321]

Yukon Jake wrote...
I'm sure the Republicans in Congress would empathize with you there.

I'd really like to think that they wouldn't. I'd like to think that they'd sympathize with the developers for trying to squeeze as many pennies out of us for as little work as possible.

In relation to separate post above: if you give a mouse a cookie factory, he might expect the cookies for free.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 31 mars 2010 - 10:12 .

[ModerateOsprey]

TheMadCat wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


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?

Abuse is simply abuse, to take an opportune advantage at the expense of others. There is no market created standard in pricing of DLC as there is with full retail products, there is no competition with other companies to keep prices at a stable level. Because of this developers have the capability to mark it for whatever they want and due to the lack of competition consumers have no other options, it's either pay it or go home.

Of course they still have to mark it at a price that will generate a targeted number of consumers and as consumers it is still in our hand whether we purchase it or not. This is why I eluded to the digital dollar era though, currency is undervalued by most consumers when it comes to online transactions and there have been actual studies on this, I'll see if I can dig a few up if need to be. Because of this undervaluing that goes on by typical consumers it does give them a little more ground to work with before reaching the tipping point.

Now I'm not ever expecting anything completely outrageous such as an Warden's Keep size DLC for $30. The problem is "value" is incredibly subjective as I'm sure there are people who would have paid $30 for Warden's Keep and felt it was worth every penny. This is why I didn't call out any particular comapnies or DLC's, rather I simply eluded to the fact that the ingrdients are there for companies to take advantage of and abuse the unique situation of DLC. It can be a great thing and certainly not the biggest crock of this generation, but it can also be used to sacrifice quality and charge more then a competitive enviorment would allow.

I agree with all this.

My concern is in the very low value items in terms of dollars. These add up. Most people. would just say no way at 30 gold pieces for Warden's Keep, but yeah I'l have a pair of sun glasses for 25 silver. Except after you have done the game, you may found that you have actually bought 12 pairs of sunglasses for your different characters, along with a couple of snazzy handbags and new soft toy for Lel that may actually total the 30 gold.

[ModerateOsprey]

weyrleader wrote...

arrrrgh! Here we go AGAIN!!!!

GIve a mouse a cookie..........and he's going to want to friggin factory it was made in....FOR FREE!!!!

Mice eat cookies in my house for free 

[Yukon Jake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...
I'm sure the Republicans in Congress would empathize with you there.

I'd really like to think that they wouldn't. I'd like to think that they'd sympathize with the developers for trying to squeeze as many pennies out of us for as little work as possible.

In the context of the health care reform bill the Repub-O's are in your minority brothers in arms; though I think they've been far more dramatic than most of the posters in this thread 

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It was more intended as a visual for the reference. To give a mental image. People often decide between eating apples or oranges, true, but they still don't offten think "maybe a game would give me better dollar value than a movie tonight."

Indeed, but I think that has more to do with the different purchase/consumption regimes. People do compare game purchases to music and movie purchases, and going out to a movie to going out to a sports event, theater performance, and so on.

[dolmakalem]

they're creating a ring with some power in 5 minutes and demanding 5$. its weird for sure.

[weyrleader]

Lilisia wrote...

If I have killed the gaming industry by buying a couple of DLCs as part of the paying majority, I'll tell you this....

The shoe industry is doomed!!

ROFL!!!!  WELL.....SAID!!!!  That is all.