323 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

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!!

It's not hurting the industry, it's hurting the people who buy it's goods.

[Yukon Jake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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!!

It's not hurting the industry, it's hurting the people who buy it's goods.

Not sure how providing extra goods and services to a large fraction of a customer base is hurting the customers who find the goods undesirable and choose not to partake.

Please explain.

[the_one_54321]

Yukon Jake wrote...
Not sure how providing extra goods and services to a large fraction of a customer base is hurting the customers who find the goods undesirable and choose not to partake.

Please explain.

They are driving up prices by buying up what's being offered.

[Sylvius the Mad]

edit: I need to read better.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 31 mars 2010 - 10:38 .

[ModerateOsprey]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...
Not sure how providing extra goods and services to a large fraction of a customer base is hurting the customers who find the goods undesirable and choose not to partake.

Please explain.

They are driving up prices by buying up what's being offered.

This is true, If people just buy without being critical, then it is certainly the consumer who is going to get hurt in the pocket.

[Yukon Jake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...
Not sure how providing extra goods and services to a large fraction of a customer base is hurting the customers who find the goods undesirable and choose not to partake.

Please explain.

They are driving up prices by buying up what's being offered.

We're still talking about DLC, right?
The merchandise is digital, and therefore effectively infinite in terms of availability.  Nothing is being bought out.

Pricing schemes for DLC are based on a myriad of factors, which we briefly discussed earlier, but trend down when there are more buyers.

So DLC buyers aren't driving costs up, but down.  Furthermore it's a product that non-interested parties can opt out of.

How does any of that hurt non-interested parties with the exception of them making impulse purchases and experiencing "buyer's remorse" after they made a poor decision?  I don't think it does.

If anything, you non buyers are driving up the costs of my DLC!

Modifié par Yukon Jake, 31 mars 2010 - 10:44 .

[ModerateOsprey]

Yukon Jake wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...
Not sure how providing extra goods and services to a large fraction of a customer base is hurting the customers who find the goods undesirable and choose not to partake.

Please explain.

They are driving up prices by buying up what's being offered.

We're still talking about DLC, right?
The merchandise is digital, and therefore effectively infinite in terms of availability.  Nothing is being bought out.

Pricing schemes for DLC are based on a myriad of factors, which we briefly discussed earlier, but trend down when there are more buyers.

So DLC buyers aren't driving costs up, but down.  Furthermore it's a product that non-interested parties can opt out of.

How does any of that hurt non-interested parties with the exception of them making impulse purchases and experiencing "buyer's remorse" after they made a poor decision?  I don't think it does.

I can't say I have noticed a trend down in the cost of games or DLC lately. I would have said the opposite?

[Drake Sigar]

What's the difference between DLC and a brothel? None, either way you get screwed.

Downloadable content isn't going away. People are willing to pay the exorbitant fees. Hell, people are willing to fork over $140 dollars for a special edition of the Ghostbusters game with a little plastic Slimer. In what is supposedly an economic crisis no less.

DLC was a nice idea. A way to get more content in little bits, rather than wait six months or for an expansion pack. Unfortunately the system is not abuse-free. As a result, we've had one of our first instances of in-game advertisements for DLC, a peddler at the DA: Origins party camp. EpicGames considered making players pay for the ending of a title if the game was used. There's been obvious signs that companies have intentionally removed content from a 'full' game in order to sell it as DLC (this is nothing new, but if it were on the PC, players would be able to seek the files, find the evidence and expose the company).

Modifié par Drake Sigar, 31 mars 2010 - 10:49 .

[Yukon Jake]

ModerateOsprey wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...
Not sure how providing extra goods and services to a large fraction of a customer base is hurting the customers who find the goods undesirable and choose not to partake.

Please explain.

They are driving up prices by buying up what's being offered.

We're still talking about DLC, right?
The merchandise is digital, and therefore effectively infinite in terms of availability.  Nothing is being bought out.

Pricing schemes for DLC are based on a myriad of factors, which we briefly discussed earlier, but trend down when there are more buyers.

So DLC buyers aren't driving costs up, but down.  Furthermore it's a product that non-interested parties can opt out of.

How does any of that hurt non-interested parties with the exception of them making impulse purchases and experiencing "buyer's remorse" after they made a poor decision?  I don't think it does.

I can't say I have noticed a trend down in the cost of games or DLC lately. I would have said the opposite?

I can also honestly say that the quality of the ME1 DLC was poor in comparison to the DA:O DLC I've bought.  Perhaps the increased price can be related to the additional hours required for a more robust release?  I'm certain "game popularity" factors into that price as well.

The more purchasers you have the easier it is to cover your costs.  One thing I haven't seen in DLC yet is the sliding price scale.  Example: Release cost of $20, when sales slip we reduce it to $15 to pick up some of the holdouts, and drop it to $10 1 month before we release an additional piece of DLC.  Hmm, best not give them any ideas unless they start handing me a paycheck.

[the_one_54321]

Yukon Jake wrote...
We're still talking about DLC, right?
The merchandise is digital, and therefore effectively infinite in terms of availability.  Nothing is being bought out.

You don't have to buy it out to drive up the price. Instead of thinking about DLC specifically, think of how much "game" you get for your investment. DLC is making it more and more acceptable to get less "game" for your investment. It goes back to the tiers I was talking about. Original game>expansion>DLC>individual items.

[the_one_54321]

Yukon Jake wrote...
We're still talking about DLC, right?
The merchandise is digital, and therefore effectively infinite in terms of availability.  Nothing is being bought out.

You don't have to buy it out to drive up the price. Instead of thinking about DLC specifically, think of how much "game" you get for your investment. DLC is making it more and more acceptable to get less "game" for your investment. It goes back to the tiers I was talking about. Original game>expansion>DLC>individual items.

[ModerateOsprey]

Drake Sigar wrote...

What's the difference between DLC and a brothel? None, either way you get screwed.

Downloadable content isn't going away. People are willing to pay the exorbitant fees. Hell, people are willing to fork over $140 dollars for a special edition of the Ghostbusters game with a little plastic Slimer. In what is supposedly an economic crisis no less.

DLC was a nice idea. A way to get more content in little bits, rather than wait six months or for an expansion pack. Unfortunately the system is not abuse-free. As a result, we've had one of our first instances of in-game advertisements for DLC, a peddler at the DA: Origins party camp. EpicGames considered making players pay for the ending of a title if the game was used. There's been obvious signs that companies have intentionally removed content from a 'full' game in order to sell it as DLC (this is nothing new, but if it were on the PC, players would be able to seek the files, find the evidence and expose the company).

I found the merchant in the camp pretty crass as well. As for making someone pay for the end of a game that almost takes my breath away.

[the_one_54321]

ModerateOsprey wrote...
I found the merchant in the camp pretty crass as well. As for making someone pay for the end of a game that almost takes my breath away.

That honestly made me angry. When he stopped in the middle of his interesting story to say I had to pay to continue. I was reminded of phone sex jokes. <_<

[Drake Sigar]

ModerateOsprey wrote...
I found the merchant in the camp pretty crass as well.

What really toasts my marshmallows is that Bioware representatives popped on the forum and basically said the game is so huge, we'd never notice one guy offering DLC in some romote corner of the world. And if we did, we could always avoid him.
WELL IT'S BLOODY HARD TO AVOID HIM WHEN HE'S FOLLOWING YOU AROUND THE ENTIRE WORLD IN YOUR PARTY CAMP! WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING!!11!!$£££1

I'm sorry. It just makes me so angry.

[ModerateOsprey]

Yukon Jake wrote...

ModerateOsprey wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...
Not sure how providing extra goods and services to a large fraction of a customer base is hurting the customers who find the goods undesirable and choose not to partake.

Please explain.

They are driving up prices by buying up what's being offered.

We're still talking about DLC, right?
The merchandise is digital, and therefore effectively infinite in terms of availability.  Nothing is being bought out.

Pricing schemes for DLC are based on a myriad of factors, which we briefly discussed earlier, but trend down when there are more buyers.

So DLC buyers aren't driving costs up, but down.  Furthermore it's a product that non-interested parties can opt out of.

How does any of that hurt non-interested parties with the exception of them making impulse purchases and experiencing "buyer's remorse" after they made a poor decision?  I don't think it does.

I can't say I have noticed a trend down in the cost of games or DLC lately. I would have said the opposite?

I can also honestly say that the quality of the ME1 DLC was poor in comparison to the DA:O DLC I've bought.  Perhaps the increased price can be related to the additional hours required for a more robust release?  I'm certain "game popularity" factors into that price as well.

The more purchasers you have the easier it is to cover your costs.  One thing I haven't seen in DLC yet is the sliding price scale.  Example: Release cost of $20, when sales slip we reduce it to $15 to pick up some of the holdouts, and drop it to $10 1 month before we release an additional piece of DLC.  Hmm, best not give them any ideas unless they start handing me a paycheck.

Hehe - yes.

Of course, the more customers that buy then your costs are covered, but the whole purpose of a commercial organisation is to make money, so profit must be mentioned. Nowt wrong with profit. I am businessman, gotta have profit or we don't eat. I operate in a small rural area, tho' and if I take the p*ss, I will be living in a cardboard box.

I don't know what the factors are that go into pricing of DLC. I could take some guesses and some ideas have been proposed on this thread. There does seem to be a perception among what I would call reasonable people on this forum (and others) that there is a little bit of p*ss taking going on.

As I have mentioned above, I have been perfectly happy with my purchases from BW and happy to recommend their products to others, but I have refused to buy some things (not necessarily BW) because I think they are taking the p*ss.

One of the elements of the original thread title is 'this generation'. As an older person, I have watched toys become intermingled with different media to the point where cartoons of no particular merit were created simply to sell mediocre toys. We now have virtual toys, so the potential for abuse is much, much higher.

[ModerateOsprey]

Drake Sigar wrote...

ModerateOsprey wrote...
I found the merchant in the camp pretty crass as well.

What really toasts my marshmallows is that Bioware representatives popped on the forum and basically said the game is so huge, we'd never notice one guy offering DLC in some romote corner of the world. And if we did, we could always avoid him.
WELL IT'S BLOODY HARD TO AVOID HIM WHEN HE'S FOLLOWING YOU AROUND THE ENTIRE WORLD IN YOUR PARTY CAMP! WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING!!11!!$£££1

I'm sorry. It just makes me so angry.

LOL - You're allowed. Here have a glass of malt.

[Yukon Jake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...
We're still talking about DLC, right?
The merchandise is digital, and therefore effectively infinite in terms of availability.  Nothing is being bought out.

You don't have to buy it out to drive up the price. Instead of thinking about DLC specifically, think of how much "game" you get for your investment. DLC is making it more and more acceptable to get less "game" for your investment. It goes back to the tiers I was talking about. Original game>expansion>DLC>individual items.

So your perspective is that  "you're getting less game for your buck."

The perspective of people that buy DLC is "I'm getting more of that game I like."
Those people are willing to forgo the groundbreaking new game for the fun and familiar known quantity.

Developers are beginning realize that those people are a nice sized market.  Furthermore, the longer you can extend your products time in the "product life cycle" the more pure profit you make.

They have a successful game with a good engine under the hood.  There are a group of players that grow attached to the characters, storyline, user interface, and play mechanics.

Now they may have a core group of designers building new engines and databases (which can take a long time), but they have some other departments on salary whose contribution to new game development may take less time.  Why not utilize their time building expansions?

The company runs more efficiently, a full time staff can be maintained, a segment of the consumers are happy with the new content for the old game.  The part nobody in this thread seems to realize is that as profits from things like DLCs go up, the company will likely expand to develop a greater number of new titles in the future, possibly quicker too.

An example would be NCSoft, the makers of City of Heroes.  They came out with a DLC called the "wedding pack".  The PvP and game community were in an uproar that the devs had spent time making something so useless.  The role playing crowd loved it and bought it en masse.  A couple months later the devs told the community that the funds generated from the wedding pack was the reason NCSoft was able to pay for more developers thus speeding the development cycle for the free issue sized expansions.

You might not like DLC yourself, but the revenue generated by it helps the community as a whole. 

[ModerateOsprey]

Yukon Jake wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...
We're still talking about DLC, right?
The merchandise is digital, and therefore effectively infinite in terms of availability.  Nothing is being bought out.

You don't have to buy it out to drive up the price. Instead of thinking about DLC specifically, think of how much "game" you get for your investment. DLC is making it more and more acceptable to get less "game" for your investment. It goes back to the tiers I was talking about. Original game>expansion>DLC>individual items.

So your perspective is that  "you're getting less game for your buck."

The perspective of people that buy DLC is "I'm getting more of that game I like."
Those people are willing to forgo the groundbreaking new game for the fun and familiar known quantity.

Developers are beginning realize that those people are a nice sized market.  Furthermore, the longer you can extend your products time in the "product life cycle" the more pure profit you make.

They have a successful game with a good engine under the hood.  There are a group of players that grow attached to the characters, storyline, user interface, and play mechanics.

Now they may have a core group of designers building new engines and databases (which can take a long time), but they have some other departments on salary whose contribution to new game development may take less time.  Why not utilize their time building expansions?

The company runs more efficiently, a full time staff can be maintained, a segment of the consumers are happy with the new content for the old game.  The part nobody in this thread seems to realize is that as profits from things like DLCs go up, the company will likely expand to develop a greater number of new titles in the future, possibly quicker too.

An example would be NCSoft, the makers of City of Heroes.  They came out with a DLC called the "wedding pack".  The PvP and game community were in an uproar that the devs had spent time making something so useless.  The role playing crowd loved it and bought it en masse.  A couple months later the devs told the community that the funds generated from the wedding pack was the reason NCSoft was able to pay for more developers thus speeding the development cycle for the free issue sized expansions.

You might not like DLC yourself, but the revenue generated by it helps the community as a whole. 

I am certainly not arguing against that point of view and I agree with everything you said there and actually made me want to check out that game developer you mentioned. I have no problems at all with the principle of DLC, but I think are lots of devils in the details.

[filetemon]

DLC are a new breed of business tactics focused on giving high execs huge bonuses.



The reason EA and Activision swallow entire developers is like reapers in mass effect: they are your salvation through destruction.



You are in financial trouble, they buy you out and then give you cash to spend but control your intellectual property forcing you to pull DLC's out of your ass and to cut whatever you had in your game that was not appealing to a mainstream base.



you said "You might not like DLC yourself, but the revenue generated by it helps the community as a whole."



not true, dlc, paid demos, and other crap only truly profit the publisher, not the developer, and a wide margin of that profit goes to 10-12 individuals named themselves "high execs"



Take an example of that the infinity ward-activision drama

[Raven-sb]

Personally I've enjoyed the DLC offered by Bioware. Then again I've read up on what the DLC provided and made my decision to buy it based on my preferances as a player. For example, I have not picked up the armor pack for Mass Effect 2, simply because that's not the type of DLC that I enjoy. I have picked up all the Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age DLC currently released, and I can honestly say that I've enjoyed every moment of them.



As for the DA quest guy in the party camp, how hard is it to ignore him? Currently I'm replaying through the DA:O campaign (yet again) and I'm delaying doing the DLC quests. He just stands there with an exclaimation point on his head, and I just walk straight past him to talk to other characters. I'm having difficulty understanding why others can't do the same.

[ModerateOsprey]

Raven-sb wrote...

Personally I've enjoyed the DLC offered by Bioware. Then again I've read up on what the DLC provided and made my decision to buy it based on my preferances as a player. For example, I have not picked up the armor pack for Mass Effect 2, simply because that's not the type of DLC that I enjoy. I have picked up all the Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age DLC currently released, and I can honestly say that I've enjoyed every moment of them.

As for the DA quest guy in the party camp, how hard is it to ignore him? Currently I'm replaying through the DA:O campaign (yet again) and I'm delaying doing the DLC quests. He just stands there with an exclaimation point on his head, and I just walk straight past him to talk to other characters. I'm having difficulty understanding why others can't do the same.

I actually find it very difficult to ignore the large exclamation mark in camp. That symbol in-game represents: this is very important...do not ignore.

[ModerateOsprey]

filetemon wrote...

DLC are a new breed of business tactics focused on giving high execs huge bonuses.

The reason EA and Activision swallow entire developers is like reapers in mass effect: they are your salvation through destruction.

You are in financial trouble, they buy you out and then give you cash to spend but control your intellectual property forcing you to pull DLC's out of your ass and to cut whatever you had in your game that was not appealing to a mainstream base.

you said "You might not like DLC yourself, but the revenue generated by it helps the community as a whole."

not true, dlc, paid demos, and other crap only truly profit the publisher, not the developer, and a wide margin of that profit goes to 10-12 individuals named themselves "high execs"

Take an example of that the infinity ward-activision drama

I can only partially agree with that. DLC is a convenient, cost effective delivery mechanism for digital content. No problem with that. How it is implemented though, I fear a lot of what you said contains quite a bit of truth.

[Yukon Jake]

filetemon wrote...

You are in financial trouble, they buy you out and then give you cash to spend but control your intellectual property forcing you to pull DLC's out of your ass and to cut whatever you had in your game that was not appealing to a mainstream base.

Bioware wasn't in financial trouble.  They were, however, a publicly traded company, and thus susceptible to being bought.  Additionally, I don't think you are qualified to determine whether the DLC is appealing to the "mainstream base".  Let the free market sort that one out.

filetemon wrote...
you said "You might not like DLC yourself, but the revenue generated by it helps the community as a whole."

not true, dlc, paid demos, and other crap only truly profit the publisher, not the developer, and a wide margin of that profit goes to 10-12 individuals named themselves "high execs"

Take an example of that the infinity ward-activision drama

In that very post I provided an example where enough revenue generated by a publisher's joint decision with development promoted growth of the development staff and accelerated the development cycle.  Check it out!

To say that all DLC revenue goes to executive pockets is a bit extreme and simply untrue.

[Drake Sigar]

Raven-sb wrote...

As for the DA quest guy in the party camp, how hard is it to ignore him? Currently I'm replaying through the DA:O campaign (yet again) and I'm delaying doing the DLC quests. He just stands there with an exclaimation point on his head, and I just walk straight past him to talk to other characters. I'm having difficulty understanding why others can't do the same.

Immersion. It doesn't make sense roleplay wise. Picture this. There's a guy following you around the entire world. Through darkspawn infested roads, to forbidden forests, that guy is always there. If he were in the street, you'd could walk past him without a second thought. But no, he's in your basecamp. He's been staring at you for hours. Is he friend? Is he foe?

You have to talk to him. It's the only logical thing to do.

Modifié par Drake Sigar, 31 mars 2010 - 11:55 .

[ModerateOsprey]

Drake Sigar wrote...

Raven-sb wrote...

As for the DA quest guy in the party camp, how hard is it to ignore him? Currently I'm replaying through the DA:O campaign (yet again) and I'm delaying doing the DLC quests. He just stands there with an exclaimation point on his head, and I just walk straight past him to talk to other characters. I'm having difficulty understanding why others can't do the same.

Immersion. It doesn't make sense roleplay wise. Picture this. There's a guy following you around the entire world. Through darkspawn infested roads, to forbidden forests, that guy is always there. If he were in the street, you'd could walk past him without a second thought. But no, he's in your basecamp. He's been staring at you for hours. Is he friend? Is he foe?

You have to talk to him. It's the only logical thing to do.

I would have liked to set the dog on him.