323 réponses à ce sujet

[Varenus Luckmann]

Reminds me of a weblog post I made a while ago, which I am quite happy with. It relates mostly to Mass Effect 2, but it's just as relevant to almost all DLC in general, and definately all Bioware DLC in particular.

http://social.bioware.com/36548/blog/2680/

I don't understand what's so hard about doing proper DLC, which is why it's so annoying in particular, when they hold such an incredibly low standard. What is so hard about properly incorporating DLC into the game? What's so hard about making it add substantial gameplay, instead of just more powerful weapons and armor? What's so hard about tying DLC into the game, instead of gluing it on like some piece of toiletpaper in a shoe?

Nothing, I tell you. Nothing at all. They are just unwilling, since it'd have to go through iterations. It would have to be tested. It would have to be written by someone with capabilities beyond a 5-year-old. You'd have to actually give people the trust and the responsability to do things with the IP, without running to the head honcho every minute of every hour, to see if things work.

And they're just unwilling to commit. They can't even patch their own games. They can't even give us expansions, so they give us stand-alone premium modules instead.

So how can anyone possibly expect them to produce quality DLC?

Modifié par Varenus Luckmann, 01 avril 2010 - 12:07 .

[Varenus Luckmann]

Drake Sigar wrote...
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.

This.

It's just how you magically know that there's someone at "Location X", that may want to sell you something. Wink wink. Nudge nudge.

How can I possibly know that? Would it really been so hard as to have the man show up in the camp and give you a quest to go to Warden's Keep after doing two major plot quests? Would it have been too much to ask for the Stone Prisoner questgiver to instead be a merchant in Denerim? Would it have been too much to ask that the questgiver for Return to Ostagar to have been a prisoner in one of the later dungeons? Would it have been too much to ask for any of these DLCs to be properly integrated into the game?

Of course not.

Modifié par Varenus Luckmann, 01 avril 2010 - 12:12 .

[London_Liche]

I'm in the DLC sucks camp. Now let's just hope they don't start making us pay for crucial updates. Woops. I probably shouldn't have just said that. It might give them ideas...

Modifié par London_Liche, 01 avril 2010 - 12:20 .

[Renegade133]

Geeze i dont know why people are so concerned with DLC PC Games never used to come with new content until there was a exp pack

[filetemon]

Renegade133 wrote...

Geeze i dont know why people are so concerned with DLC PC Games never used to come with new content until there was a exp pack

and that was a proper expansion pack, well priced and worth your money, not "alternate costumes pack", "a new weapon and armor" and "a new multiplayer map".

And in any case it was already in the DVD you purchased waiting to be unlocked.

[Yukon Jake]

Varenus Luckmann wrote...

Would it have been too much to ask that the questgiver for Return to Ostagar to have been a prisoner in one of the later dungeons? Would it have been too much to ask for any of these DLCs to be properly integrated into the game?

Of course not.

Reasons why they didn't do what you say is easy:

1. Inserting a new character into the structure of the existing game would be tricky business.  From a programing standpoint you not only run the risk of generating a bug in the new content but bugging out the old content as well.

2. Many people who buy DLC, or just about anything for that matter, want to experience their new purchase without having to go through levels 1-15 repeat dungeon X, Y, and Z.  They want to grab an existing, or semi-retired, character and do the DLC NOW!

3. The cost to properly develop a well integrated DLC would result in the price being to high for select customers who consider buying DLC in the first place.  If this wasn't the case--they would be doing it!  How do I know this?  Because every business owner/executive/manager knows that it is in their best interest to meet the needs of their customers.  Exorbitantly high priced DLC doesn't meet their target audiences needs.

4.  Most players are willing to employ a certain degree of "suspension of disbelief".  A good example of suspension of disbelief would be the number of balloons required to lift the house in the movie Up.  When the animators asked a physicist "how many it would take" the physicist ran a series of calculations and came up with a number that was several hundred times larger than the animators could have effectively rendered.  Moviegoers had to suspend their disbelief in this area in order to get into the movie.  Many DA:O players will do the same thing in regards to how  some dude parks in your camp till spoken to, or how you happen to know where the guy with Shale's control rod is on your map at a given time.

Simple axiom here which has been said many times throughout this thread: "If you don't like it, don't buy it!"
The release of DLC does not hurt you as a non-DLC buying customer in ANY way.

Modifié par Yukon Jake, 01 avril 2010 - 12:52 .

[filetemon]

Yukon Jake wrote...


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.

Yes but that was a very specific one and I wish to center the discussion on specific DLC from major companies, EA and Activision mostly, who are the ones who deliver most of the triple A games every year and whose DLC is the meaningful one for belonging to these top games.

I'm fine with an independent developer who sells lenghty and cheap DLC to pay the bills, I am not okay with corporations who launch stupid segmentated DLC for my favourite games.

Because they want me to spend cash in a game I love by releasing the crap who had to be in the game in first place so the Bobby Koticks and Johns Riticellos of the world can be more billionaires everyday by taking advantage of the money I wanted to donate to the hard working folks at bioware, infinity ward or whoever truly made the games I love.

[hoysexyjew]

Title of this thread is too close to "DLC: The biggest C.ock of this generation"

which is obviously mine, not some dlc bull****.

Modifié par hoysexyjew, 01 avril 2010 - 12:56 .

[Yukon Jake]

filetemon wrote...

Yukon Jake wrote...


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.

Yes but that was a very specific one and I wish to center the discussion on specific DLC from major companies, EA and Activision mostly, who are the ones who deliver most of the triple A games every year and whose DLC is the meaningful one for belonging to these top games.

I'm fine with an independent developer who sells lenghty and cheap DLC to pay the bills, I am not okay with corporations who launch stupid segmentated DLC for my favourite games.

Because they want me to spend cash in a game I love by releasing the crap who had to be in the game in first place so the Bobby Koticks and Johns Riticellos of the world can be more billionaires everyday by taking advantage of the money I wanted to donate to the hard working folks at bioware, infinity ward or whoever truly made the games I love.

I'm sorry you hate the DLC.  You aren't alone in there, but you are in the minority.

I'm not sure if your issue is with DLC, or how the profits are split between parent and children companies.  

I am fully aware that there are less scrupulous companies who are and will take advantage of the DLC market.  My recent dealings with Cryptic, owned by Atari, is a perfect example of what you are saying and has caused me to vow not to buy any of their products until I simmer down.

What I am not seeing is any direct evidence or correlation supporting what you are saying in the case of EA/Bioware.  Bioware is actually deveopling more product titles than they were a few years back, and that implies reinvestment by EA into Bioware.  If EA execs are making good decisions which cause Bioware's growth should they not be rewarded with fat paychecks?

These execs aren't like the AIG guys who drove the business into the ground and walked away with trunks of money you know.

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

Renegade133 wrote...

Geeze i dont know why people are so concerned with DLC PC Games never used to come with new content until there was a exp pack

The general issue is that we are paying for **** on a plate.
DLC should be something that is errorless and not in need of maintenance. If something is to be purchased, it is expected to be of value. If I want to play Awakenings and carry over a character, it should not affect the game in anyway than thus so. Wardens Keep affects Awakenings by damaging the code to Vigilance and Sentinel armor.
If you are going to make a DLC, it should be well coded, have a story that is integrated to the game. There really is no dedication in this department.

Not to mention that games have gotten notoriously shorter since the DLC age came about. I remember playing games that were over 100 hours long. Now its down to 15 to 30 hours thats a huge drop. Which leads to DLC...which leads to paying over 100 dollars on a game. Games cost 60 dollars compared to a few years back when they were 60, now add in taxes, all DLC, and Expansions. Holly crap, thats a good 160 dollars on a game that once you play a few times will sit on a shelf when you get a new game for a few months untill they release more DLC, or untill you remember its there collecting dust.

[CybAnt1]

Conceptually, DlC is good.



The bottom line is, though, what I really want from it, in a game with mods, is something modders can't do.



Modders can create custom items and armor. There's already several available at DA Nexus. Why pay for what the community can make for free.



Granted, Bio hasn't been doing that. They didn't charge for the Blood Dragon Armor. RtO and WK give new items, but also offer new playable areas.



What fewer modders are doing, because they don't have the time & resources of a development team, are making new playable content.



In practice, this is what DlC should be: short additional 1-5 hour content that you can play while waiting months or years for 15-20 hour expacs or 40-60 hour sequels. And priced accordingly.



If the games/sequels are $45-60, then the expacs should be $20-35, and the DlCs $5-10. But I wouldn't pay that amount for just new items. New areas, content, companions, features, abilities, enemies, YES.

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

Yukon Jake wrote...

Varenus Luckmann wrote...

Would it have been too much to ask that the questgiver for Return to Ostagar to have been a prisoner in one of the later dungeons? Would it have been too much to ask for any of these DLCs to be properly integrated into the game?

Of course not.

Reasons why they didn't do what you say is easy:

1. Inserting a new character into the structure of the existing game would be tricky business.  From a programing standpoint you not only run the risk of generating a bug in the new content but bugging out the old content as well.

2. Many people who buy DLC, or just about anything for that matter, want to experience their new purchase without having to go through levels 1-15 repeat dungeon X, Y, and Z.  They want to grab an existing, or semi-retired, character and do the DLC NOW!

3. The cost to properly develop a well integrated DLC would result in the price being to high for select customers who consider buying DLC in the first place.  If this wasn't the case--they would be doing it!  How do I know this?  Because every business owner/executive/manager knows that it is in their best interest to meet the needs of their customers.  Exorbitantly high priced DLC doesn't meet their target audiences needs.

4.  Most players are willing to employ a certain degree of "suspension of disbelief".  A good example of suspension of disbelief would be the number of balloons required to lift the house in the movie Up.  When the animators asked a physicist "how many it would take" the physicist ran a series of calculations and came up with a number that was several hundred times larger than the animators could have effectively rendered.  Moviegoers had to suspend their disbelief in this area in order to get into the movie.  Many DA:O players will do the same thing in regards to how  some dude parks in your camp till spoken to, or how you happen to know where the guy with Shale's control rod is on your map at a given time.

Simple axiom here which has been said many times throughout this thread: "If you don't like it, don't buy it!"
The release of DLC does not hurt you as a non-DLC buying customer in ANY way.

You made some valid points, but to respond to what your 4th example stated near the end...they should have at least done something sort of like mass effect 2 did...
You go to your com...ooo new message: Go x place and investigate y enemy. Find Z objective.

Some sort of letter, a rumor, anything that would say hey I heard a rumor someone is selling a Golems Control rod, I would buy but too expensive for my wallet. Understand? Make it believable at least. RTO had some thing like this, however it should have been a random encounter, that would have made sense. "Wander around and find the guy introuble rescue learn of his secret, then Return to Ostagar.

[Nukenin]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I like DLC, will gladly pay for quality DLC, and thus your plan falters.

Developers should never make the games dependent on DLC to provide a satisfactory and complete game experience, though.  The core game should always stand on its own.  Failure to keep that in mind is a peril when developers get too invested in DLC strategies.

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Conceptually, DlC is good.

The bottom line is, though, what I really want from it, in a game with mods, is something modders can't do.

Modders can create custom items and armor. There's already several available at DA Nexus. Why pay for what the community can make for free.

Granted, Bio hasn't been doing that. They didn't charge for the Blood Dragon Armor. RtO and WK give new items, but also offer new playable areas.

What fewer modders are doing, because they don't have the time & resources of a development team, are making new playable content.

In practice, this is what DlC should be: short additional 1-5 hour content that you can play while waiting months or years for 15-20 hour expacs or 40-60 hour sequels. And priced accordingly.

If the games/sequels are $45-60, then the expacs should be $20-35, and the DlCs $5-10. But I wouldn't pay that amount for just new items. New areas, content, companions, features, abilities, enemies, YES.

Dude, I agree completely.

[filetemon]

Yukon Jake wrote...

 If EA execs are making good decisions which cause Bioware's growth should they not be rewarded with fat paychecks?

These execs aren't like the AIG guys who drove the business into the ground and walked away with trunks of money you know.

Have you read EA execs are considering the idea of bringing "paid demos" to their next games? paid demos! you pay for a 3 hour demo and then buy the game and then buy the dlc and then buy the expansions and then pay for the online AND THEN put DRM in every new game.

I'm sorry to say you're being a bit naive about EA execs, or any other execs in the world.

execs make good decisions for themselves, they are persons with gigantic egos and ruthless tactics, execs are the 10-12 people that take the 15-20% of the revenues of a whole corporation of 10000-15000 workers.

Execs are those people who, still bringing companies to bankrupcy, demand their fat bonuses even when their company is filing a bankruptcy process.

Execs are those people who, having brought to bankrupcy other companyes in their careers, still get contracted by new companies and still want huge contracts and fat bonuses.

If it wasn't for greedy execs, DLC's would be longer and cheaper, bringing an acceptable model of business.

DAO: Awakening would have been acceptable for 12 dollars. 39.99 is an outrage

[Yukon Jake]

TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain wrote...


The general issue is that we are paying for **** on a plate.

This opinion is not the prevailing one.  If everyone thought it was junk there would be no incentive to sell it.  It's okay to push for higher standards in DLC, but beware the cost.

 TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain wrote...

Not to mention that games have gotten notoriously shorter since the DLC age came about. I remember playing games that were over 100 hours long.

Hmm, I bought Final Fantasy 4 back in the early 90's for around $40-$45 1990's dollars.  I got 50 hours of play out of it on the first play through.  For reference, the price of gas here then was around a $1 per gallon.

I picked up DA:O for $40 in 2010 dollars.  The first play through for it was just over 60 hours.   The price of gas here now is $3 and change.

I'm not buying your argument there.  Are you sure you aren't just mad because you bought some and didn't like it?

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

Nukenin wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I like DLC, will gladly pay for quality DLC, and thus your plan falters.

Developers should never make the games dependent on DLC to provide a satisfactory and complete game experience, though.  The core game should always stand on its own.  Failure to keep that in mind is a peril when developers get too invested in DLC strategies.

what you say is true, but think of it like this. We are puppets(consumers) on their little strings. They sell we buy. So even if the game itself is crap we go,"OH new DA:O let me get it." Then we get stuck with a 20 hour to 30 hour game tops with hardly any replayability and having to pay for extra DLC. I honestly loved DA:O and A but felt it lacking in quests and explorations. But thats just me, im used to playing games that take atleast 50 hours to beat and have at 15 hours worth of DLC.

[Raven-sb]

filetemon wrote...


DAO: Awakening would have been acceptable for 12 dollars. 39.99 is an outrage

DAO:Awakening has more content in it then the full game of Bioshock 2.  Actually, it's not unusual to pay for full games that come with less content then DAO:Awakening.

Bottom line though, if you're unsure about something, a.Read a review, and or b. read other gamers comments about the product. If you don't like what you read, don't buy it.  At the end of the day though, I think this thread has more to do with some people's obscure need to complain and moan than it has to do with DLC.

[Nukenin]

Official DLC can always trump player-made mods because (a) it'd be available for the console editions as well, and ( professional voice acting and recording.

Single item DLCs are probably best left as they are—promotional tie-ins or freebies that have zero consequence to the game.

But adventure packs, romance and other new companion packs—those can command prices commensurate with the investment in voiceover work, especially if the old companions are brought back for relevant new lines (definitely necessary for new companions to not seem as if in a vacuum regarding their interaction with other party members).

If they are committed to providing a relatively steady stream of higher-end adventure packs, romance and companion packs, and the like, then I wouldn't be averse to low-ticket (100 Bioware points per or the like) item DLCs as long as they adhere to certain standards of quality, balance, and relevance to the setting.

But ultimately?  As long as I can stick to core games should I choose, and never feel like my games are incomplete without expansions or DLC, then it's all good. 

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

Yukon Jake wrote...

TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain wrote...


The general issue is that we are paying for **** on a plate.

This opinion is not the prevailing one.  If everyone thought it was junk there would be no incentive to sell it.  It's okay to push for higher standards in DLC, but beware the cost.

 TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain wrote...

Not to mention that games have gotten notoriously shorter since the DLC age came about. I remember playing games that were over 100 hours long.

Hmm, I bought Final Fantasy 4 back in the early 90's for around $40-$45 1990's dollars.  I got 50 hours of play out of it on the first play through.  For reference, the price of gas here then was around a $1 per gallon.

I picked up DA:O for $40 in 2010 dollars.  The first play through for it was just over 60 hours.   The price of gas here now is $3 and change.

I'm not buying your argument there.  Are you sure you aren't just mad because you bought some and didn't like it?

Lol, Are you kidding? I love DA:O... but on my track record of gameplay I beat the game in about 20-30 hours and got all items and quest done. With the expansion it was about 10 hours and completed everything, the three DLC's so far added about 5 hours. Thats 45 hours, dont get me wrong I loved it, one of the best games I have ever played, but still it felt incomplete without these. All in all thats $127 dollars in one game. I could have bought 2 other games with that money. Then again im a completionist and hate to see even my gamerscore bar not filled.

What im speaking of is more in a general sense, where is this headed? Are we gonna buy games that are 15 hours(Mirrors Edge, Fable 2) and then pay more for just 2 hours of content? It just isnt satisfying anymore. Im for DLC I just think it shouldnt be a rip off. I dont want a gun, I want an arena!

[Yukon Jake]

filetemon wrote...

Have you read EA execs are considering the idea of bringing "paid demos" to their next games? paid demos! you pay for a 3 hour demo and then buy the game and then buy the dlc and then buy the expansions and then pay for the online AND THEN put DRM in every new game.

Paid demos sounds like a pretty good idea actually.  I don't think you're looking at it from the right perspective.  You pay a little to see if you like the game.  If it sucks, you're not out $40.  If you like it, then perhaps a portion, if not all, of the money paid for the demo can used to subsidize the cost of the full merchandise.  I like it!

filetemon wrote...
I'm sorry to say you're being a bit naive about EA execs, or any other execs in the world.

I think you assume too much without knowing my credentials.  I'll leave it at that.

filetemon wrote...
If it wasn't for greedy execs, DLC's would be longer and cheaper, bringing an acceptable model of business. 

Incorrect.  Consumers determine the cost of items based on their willingness to pay.  The "greedy execs" get paid quite a bit to determine what that threshold is...amongst other things.

Step into the shoes of the greedy exec and you might see things a little differently.  Maybe not though. 

filetemon wrote...
DAO: Awakening would have been acceptable for 12 dollars. 39.99 is an outrage

I would have happily paid $25 to $30 for it.  I didn't think it was worth $40 either.  My wife, who enjoys it a great deal and is on her 3rd play through, disagrees whole heartedly.

[Nukenin]

TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain wrote...

what you say is true, but think of it like this. We are puppets(consumers) on their little strings. They sell we buy. So even if the game itself is crap we go,"OH new DA:O let me get it." Then we get stuck with a 20 hour to 30 hour game tops with hardly any replayability and having to pay for extra DLC. I honestly loved DA:O and A but felt it lacking in quests and explorations. But thats just me, im used to playing games that take atleast 50 hours to beat and have at 15 hours worth of DLC.

Pardon me bringing out the trite cliché, but you don't have to buy their games.  Especially if they're crap.  Even if they're gems.  You don't have to buy them at all.  Not one bit.  You can take the $60 or whatever you save and donate it to a worthy charity, or buy yourself a new pair of shoes, or save it for a rainy day fund.

So think of it like that.  Regardless of what you think of EA or Bioware, if you buy their games, it's on you.  You're the one who made that decision.  If you feel it's made for you, by them, then you need to take a step back and think about your situation for a bit.

[filetemon]

Raven-sb wrote...

filetemon wrote...


DAO: Awakening would have been acceptable for 12 dollars. 39.99 is an outrage

DAO:Awakening has more content in it then the full game of Bioshock 2.  Actually, it's not unusual to pay for full games that come with less content then DAO:Awakening.

not true, rpgs are heavyly based on text, on reusing previous backgrounds, on returning to locations several times and doing repetitive quests and that makes their lifespan to extend, they can be made much longer and they have no co-op or online replayability, it's not comparable to a shooter.

Using your reasoning, if Bioshock 2 has 15 hours of gameplay and costs 60$, DAO should cost 300 dollars for the 70 hours of gameplay.

The dlc of a shooter has to be priced according to a shooter, and a 20 hour expansion of a rpg has to be priced based on the type of game it is.

Awakenings: 12 dollars

COD 4 MW2 Stimulus pack: it should cost 5 dollars if you ask me, maybe less.

[Nukenin]

filetemon wrote...

not true, rpgs are heavyly based on text, on reusing previous backgrounds, on returning to locations several times and doing repetitive quests and that makes their lifespan to extend, they can be made much longer and they have no co-op or online replayability, it's not comparable to a shooter.
[…]

What kind of sad, pathetic excuses for CRPGs have you been playing?  

Granted, I see this in Dragon Age, but only because I incessantly reroll new characters.  I've put over 500 hours into DA:O and DA:A combined and have yet to complete either.  

[CybAnt1]

Official DLC can always trump player-made mods because (a) it'd be available for the console editions as well, and ( professional voice acting and recording.

I aree wholeheartedly -- this is why BTW I always preferred the "OC1-3s" of NWN1 and NWN2 as well as even the "premium modules" to the player made stuff. And apparently, according to surveys, so did MOST NWN players. 

It's not to say there weren't a couple of player made modules that I enjoyed -- for what they were. Never did I find any as fun, complete, rich, & engaging as the stuff that came from the devs. Voice acting was one factor. But I also found it pretty rare where they were able to do cutscenes, utilize plot triggers, etc. as well as the devs. could, too, or write good engaging dialogue trees. 

Most mods are done by one person. It was the same with most NWN modules. Maybe 1 or 2 friends helped. But you can see the difference when a large team worked on it. It's like the difference between a movie a single person threw together with a camcorder, and a Hollywood movie with dozens of crew teams, each focusing on different aspects (lighting, props, scenery, costumery, music, etc.) 

But the other is that while a developer may provide its Toolset to the community, I doubt they will ever know it "inside & out" to the extent that the people who made it in the first place do. We can discuss how user friendly the Toolset is. My frank opinion is you probably can't do anything grand with it without some programming knowledge. To make things happen in the game, you need to know how to write scripts, which is mastering a programming language. I think it's easy for the small number of modders with a programming background. For the rest? 

Should they have made it easier to use? That's a whole separate discussion. And how much "zots" would have had to have been invested in doing that? 

In the meantime, I'm mostly waiting for it to be updated for Awakenings, so the modding community can start improving it, including just on issues of basic usability & functionality. 

I may be more anxious for that, then for whatever DlCs Bio is planning to announce themselves.