323 réponses à ce sujet

[Yukon Jake]

TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain wrote...

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!

I think communities like this one are great for providing feedback.  Evaluating feedback is one of the key ingredients to successful strategic planning sessions.  So in a sense, we are telling them where to go.

I'm with you though, I don't want to feel like I've been ripped off.

I'd guess that the key demographic for these games is mid to late 20's down.  That group isn't a high income group and is less likely to drop $100 on a single purchase than say my group which would pay that much for a good bottle of wine with dinner.  

So if you consider that the key demographic is more comfortable with a $40 price tag than a $100 one, how do you adjust for inflation and increasing operation and labor costs?  Keep the price and give them less product.
The price of a new console game back in the 90's was about $40-$50, and the price of a new game now is $40-$50.  

If you are saying that a you as a player are noticing you are getting less for your buck  you probably are.  

I'm not seeing it, though that may be because I don't have the skillz I used to have when I was young 

[filetemon]

[quote]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.

[quote]Yukon Jake wrote...
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![/quote]

that's what I have been doing my whole life as a gamer FOR FREE. Demos are free, that's the point of a demo, if I don't like the game, I'm not out 40$, but I'm also not out 5$ or whatever they want to charge for a demo.So now I have to pay even to see if my computer can run the game, I have to risk 5 dollars only to have the chance to see an error screen or a "insufficient video memory" text box.[/quote]

[quote]Yukon Jake wrote...

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

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.[/quote]

[/quote]

No, because games are bought with the heart, it's not like buying a pair of pants or going to a restaurant. People get emotional with their favorite games and accept to be cheated by the company by consciously knowing they are being robbed.That brings several things.

Consumer buys DLC but curses the company and swears not to purchase anything from them again or,

consumer buys DLC and it's full of bugs so he reccomends everybody not to buy it. or,

consumer can't afford DLC and pirates it. In the next installment of his favorite gaming franchise, he'll pirate the game to punish the company for their business tactics.

[Raven-sb]

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.

Everything you just wrote, barring the text part applies to Bioshock 2. Reuse of previous backgrounds, check, returning to locations serveral times and doing repetitive quests, check.   DLC to extend game's lifespan, check, but I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot cattle prod.

FYI some rpg's have co-op and/or online replayability, granted DA:O doesn't.

[MindYerBeak]

I'm a great fan of this type of game, ever since BG1 was launched. Piracy is rampant within the games industry, there are forums dedicated to it. As a result companies who spend a fortune producing a great game of your choice will lose money as a result. Less money means we, the gamers, have to wait longer for another such game to emerge. It's for this reason I support Bioware and am more than willing to spend my cash on their games in order that they recieve the reward they so rightly deserve, and encourage them to make a sequel. With so many trash games on the market it's a refreshing change when a game like DAO and it's addons appear. There's also Modder content yet to come, perhaps a sequel, a kind of Part 2, of DAO could be waiting in the wings. 'Tis early days yet and already modders are improving the game with new hairstyles, armour, etc.



For the above reasons I believe the game developers of a game such as DAO deserve our support and our cash. I could have pirated most of their games, but chose not to, since I wanted to encourage more games of the same genre. I'd like to see another game like DAO2 being offered, but it won't happen any time soon if we don't support them. You can't expect them to make sequels if they're not making a decent profit. Then there's the replayability. I'm now on my 2nd playthrough, this time with a different team and new challenges to explore. There are also different paths to take via the spell/ability trees. Few games can offer this kind of replayability and offers value for money. Most games I've purchased have been shelved after their first playthrough. That surely isn't value for money.

[filetemon]

Nukenin wrote...


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

One where, for example, the church of Amaranthine has exactly the same interior as the one in Denerim.

[filetemon]

Lothering I meant, my bad.

Modifié par filetemon, 01 avril 2010 - 02:04 .

[filetemon]

Raven-sb wrote...

Everything you just wrote, barring the text part applies to Bioshock 2. Reuse of previous backgrounds, check, returning to locations serveral times and doing repetitive quests, check.   DLC to extend game's lifespan, check, but I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot cattle prod.

RPGs have a lot of micromanaging and passive gaming that doesn't take into account on a shooter, I spent 10 hours of my DAO playthrough micromanaging the inventory and 20 raising approval in camp, that kind of passive gaming you can not ask in a shooter.

And while you backtrack in bioshock 2, there's not the massive amount of generic rpg mission the likes of "bring 10 potions to the chantry scholar" "bring silvan wood to the templars" or "collect 20 lyrium potions for the apostate's guild"

because rushing in a playtrough, you can finish DAO in 15 hours and awakening in 5.

So now, how about 39.99 for 5 hours of gameplay?

You can understand it, or not.

[Nukenin]

What relevance does a reused interior (not that I recall ever being inside the chantry in Denerim) have?  If you are implying that DA:O is a sad, pathetic excuse for a CRPG, why are you still here?  

[Nukenin]

filetemon wrote...

[…]because rushing in a playtrough, you can finish DAO in 15 hours and awakening in 5.

So now, how about 39.99 for 5 hours of gameplay?

You can understand it, or not.

I think with just Awakening alone (playing as an Orlesian warden), I put in about 50 hours of play before I decided I wanted to run through Origins and finish it for once then do an import.

So right now I'm at $39.95 for 50 hours of personal entertainment.

You can understand that, or not. 

Not all of us are in a race to finish it.

[Yukon Jake]

 Going to revisit this thread tomorrow.  Have fun all!

[filetemon]

Nukenin wrote...

 If you are implying that DA:O is a sad, pathetic excuse for a CRPG, why are you still here?  

I just re-used your words to make you notice how inappropiate that comment was, since dragon age recycles scenarios, a feature you say belongs to "sad, pathetic excuses for CRPGS"

[13Dannyboy13]

One thing that worries me about all the DLC is that it seems to be pushing QA to the side since they are so focused on rushing out DLC for more money. I mean there has been game breaking bugs since day one in origins and still we have no fix, we have more DLC, we have an expansion, but unless you are on a pc you have no fixes. Don't get me wrong, DLC can be great, but not when they spend more time on DLC than actually fixing the game, I mean come on, the bugs even carry over to the expansion, the only thing the latest "patch" did was to make the expansion compatible with origins.

[filetemon]

Yukon Jake wrote...

 Going to revisit this thread tomorrow.  Have fun all!

I liked this small talk we had, hope we can repeat it tomorrow. :happy:

[filetemon]

13Dannyboy13 wrote...

One thing that worries me about all the DLC is that it seems to be pushing QA to the side since they are so focused on rushing out DLC for more money. I mean there has been game breaking bugs since day one in origins and still we have no fix, we have more DLC, we have an expansion, but unless you are on a pc you have no fixes. Don't get me wrong, DLC can be great, but not when they spend more time on DLC than actually fixing the game, I mean come on, the bugs even carry over to the expansion, the only thing the latest "patch" did was to make the expansion compatible with origins.

yup, that's another huge issue

firewalker pack, return to ostagar ps3, awakenings, all had launching problems.

[Nukenin]

filetemon wrote...

Nukenin wrote...

 If you are implying that DA:O is a sad, pathetic excuse for a CRPG, why are you still here?  

I just re-used your words to make you notice how inappropiate that comment was, since dragon age recycles scenarios, a feature you say belongs to "sad, pathetic excuses for CRPGS"

Oh, well I was responding to your terrible perception of what defines a ©RPG:

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

I figure if that what you think, you've been playing at least one sad, pathetic excuse for an CRPG, because I don't see those elements as defining elements of any of the CRPGs I've ever played, and I've played a lot, since, oh, 1979.

I mean yes, some CRPGs reuse areas or interiors, some CRPGs have you return to the same location more than a couple times, and I guess some have quest types that get to be rather monotonous, but these I would never consider defining elements of a (decent) CRPG.

It's possible you don't see the derogation in what you wrote, and you are quite happy with CRPGs as you perceive them.   Ah well, if that works for you, so be it!  

Modifié par Nukenin, 01 avril 2010 - 02:34 .

[filetemon]

besides DAO, other european rpgs this past year with acceptable success were Drakensang and Risen, I played both and while they're light years below DAO in terms of quality, they're considered fairly decent rpgs, and they all have the flaws aforementioned.

Modifié par filetemon, 01 avril 2010 - 02:39 .

[purplesunset]

We've had this discussion before and the people in power to make a difference never read them.

Th biggest misconception that still persists is that DLC is necessary for the devs to keep making games. That, I grant, is complete crock. All evidence seems to point at DLC being a way for the big publishers to squeeze out more profits on top of what they already made from the base game. They can blame piracy till they turn blue, but DLC is not harder to pirate than the base game. The game market is simply saturated with low quality clones.

But when truly good games come out, they will make decent profits. The Witcher did very well for itself depsite not having the big marketing push that an EA owned company could afford, and they even released a patch which removed the DRM later on.  Good games will sell well.  online word of mouth is a powerful thing in gaming.

But let's not  forget the real impact of DLC...a psychological one.

DLC changes a company culture for the worse. The focus is no longer about what ideas would be creative, or genre-pushing to implement. The focus becomes what will sell the most., what will appeal to the widest swath of their cuastomer base. (There are no more fans, just customers).

If you want gaming companies that still have that wide-eyed, optimistic view about what video games can be like they had in the early 90's, look to indie companies especially those from amateur fansites and from europe.

[Jagrevi]

Honestly, I love DLC - at least in theory and/or when it's handled well.

I was very dissapointed with Awakening's handling of continuity ... but other than that, it was a great product.

[filetemon]

purplesunset wrote...

We've had this discussion before and the people in power to make a difference never read them.

Th biggest misconception that still persists is that DLC is necessary for the devs to keep making games. That, I grant, is complete crock. All evidence seems to point at DLC being a way for the big publishers to squeeze out more profits on top of what they already made from the base game. They can blame piracy till they turn blue, but DLC is not harder to pirate than the base game. The game market is simply saturated with low quality clones.

But when truly good games come out, they will make decent profits. The Witcher did very well for itself depsite not having the big marketing push that an EA owned company could afford, and they even released a patch which removed the DRM later on.  Good games will sell well.  online word of mouth is a powerful thing in gaming.

But let's not  forget the real impact of DLC...a psychological one.

DLC changes a company culture for the worse. The focus is no longer about what ideas would be creative, or genre-pushing to implement. The focus becomes what will sell the most., what will appeal to the widest swath of their cuastomer base. (There are no more fans, just customers).

I absolutely agree with every word of this post, well done sir.

[Raven-sb]

filetemon wrote...



because rushing in a playtrough, you can finish DAO in 15 hours and awakening in 5.

So now, how about 39.99 for 5 hours of gameplay?

You can understand it, or not.

ROFL, yep rushing I'm sure you can do that. In which case you have no one but yourself to blame.  Personally I take time to explore every nook and cranny of the world.  I can't tell you how many hours I've spent on Dragon Age Origin's and Awakening, but it's a heck of a lot more than 20 hours for both games.  Heck I spent a full month playing Dragon Age Origins alone.

You can understand that or not.  Regardless neither one of us is going to convince the other.  Just remember something, just because you do something one way, or just because you like or dislike a certain thing, doesn't necessarilly mean everyone has to follow suit and feel the same way.  I will continue to support Bioware with DLC that add's extra quests simply because I enjoy that type of DLC.  You obviously do not enjoy it.   I wish you all the very best with the base game. Btw you do know that you can disable the option in the game that informs that the DLC is avaible if you so desire? That way your immersion is not lost by quest givers whom you can't ignore.

[nikki191]

dont they have seperate teams for patching and working on DLC, etc

[AlanC9]

Yukon Jake wrote...
So if you consider that the key demographic is more comfortable with a $40 price tag than a $100 one, how do you adjust for inflation and increasing operation and labor costs?  Keep the price and give them less product. 
The price of a new console game back in the 90's was about $40-$50, and the price of a new game now is $40-$50. 

Note that the price of a new game has always been $40-$50. I'm looking at an issue of MacWorld from December 1987 and almost all the games are in that range.  That's $75-$95 in current dollars.

Of course, the gamer demographic's a little different these days.

[AlanC9]

Edit: double post.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 avril 2010 - 04:11 .

[AlanC9]

purplesunset wrote...
But let's not  forget the real impact of DLC...a psychological one.

DLC changes a company culture for the worse. The focus is no longer about what ideas would be creative, or genre-pushing to implement. The focus becomes what will sell the most., what will appeal to the widest swath of their cuastomer base. (There are no more fans, just customers).

How does DLC change that? It's content for sale. So is the full game.

Hell, if anything, DLC gives a publisher the chance to do stuff it couldn't do in an A-list title. The NWN1 Premium mods went places Bio couldn't go in NWN.

[the_one_54321]

Yukon Jake wrote...
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'm not entirely certain I agree with you on this. Freedom in development is a good thing, but missapropriation of resources is not. So it's a delecate balance.

But I will say that you are clearly a very thoughtful individual and have paid careful attention to this exchange and I really appreciate that.