137 réponses à ce sujet

[FrostGun]

Reinholder wrote...

But it's not an addendum that works here - if the DLC adds a new character to your game, then it's a given that people are going to want to buy it - it's just that the microsoft points system is so inefficient...Especially for those living outside of the continental USA, because it's not like we even get half the content that they do. If they did? Great! No harm, no foul. I'd simply nip down to the shop, buy 2100 or 1200msp and use the rest to buy something like a game that was decent...unfortunately that just isn't the case. There's no justifiable cost in their provider service. Now again, if I could convert the msp into time for my live gold access, again, no harm, no foul.

Good idea in principle ms, poor in practice. It's actually something I'd expect out of apple.

I dont own an Xbox so i cannot comment on the MS purchasing service. If its additional content you are afraid of getting (ie wastage points) Then i guess by supporting/buying this DLC you will support BW and encourage them to make new content? usually a company is more motivated to make content when there is profit to be made. Which explains the quality difference between hammerhead vs Kasumi?

Again i stress i don't know how MS does their points system, but ill take your word in MS provides a poor service. I never really liked them anyway.. lol

[RoninOmega]

She's too epic, thats your reson, nuff said

[Reinholder]

FrostGun wrote...

I dont own an Xbox so i cannot comment on the MS purchasing service. If its additional content you are afraid of getting (ie wastage points) Then i guess by supporting/buying this DLC you will support BW and encourage them to make new content? usually a company is more motivated to make content when there is profit to be made. Which explains the quality difference between hammerhead vs Kasumi?

Again i stress i don't know how MS does their points system, but ill take your word in MS provides a poor service. I never really liked them anyway.. lol

Again, I'm all for supporting bioware if they release the DLC as a pack that can be bought in stores, or directly through cerberus.

[Kandid001]

I respect the effort to develop and release Kasumi but I'm against the idea of buying tiny stuff, so I'll pass. There's no way I'll buy any DLC for any game. Ever. If it was a full size expansion on a disk instead of a virtual purchase with lousy Microsuck points, I'd grab it on its release date.



inb4 "LOL hypokrit u dont haef Dragun Age Awakenunk in ur profile"



I'll get Awakening as soon as I'm in the mood.

[FrostGun]

RAIDENKUN wrote...

You're right, that analogy is terrible. In some sense the argument is valid, but specifically applied to the situation of DLC it doesn't hold its weight. A better analogy would be "I'll sell you a car (a video game) for regular price. Of course if you'd like windshield wipers, a horn, and a brake (DLC) you'll have to buy them separately. Oh and you'll need to buy them with an imaginary form of money that only my car dealership accepts. It shouldn't be a big deal though because you don't really NEED them to drive your car." Obviously this is far from a perfect analogy, but I think it starts to grasp the complexity of the situation. Nobody wants 85% of a video game. I want the whole thing. I didn't NEED Kasumi, but she adds to the experience.

I don't know where you are from but those are a NEED for anycar. Here in Aus, your car is not fit on the road without those.

Every DLC adds to experience. Even the $2 costume pack. or the hammerhead. Or the  Cerberus + shotgun pack.

[FrostGun]

RAIDENKUN wrote...
Again though, I believe your argument is simplified too much. Time can't measure which is a BETTER game - that's entirely subjective. What it measures is which game is a smarter buy. Buying a 100 hour game is a better BUY than a 20 hour game of equivalent price. It's like comparing ME2 with WoW. I'm not a huge fan of MMOs, but if World of Warcraft was $60 for a one-time purchase I would gladly buy it before ME2, bad graphics and all.

Haha, look we are just going to continue to disagree here.. And i disagree on your point there completely. Quality hours over Quantity hours. We can argue this until we are blue in the face.

Lets just agree to disagree.

[FrostGun]

Kandid001 wrote...

I respect the effort to develop and release Kasumi but I'm against the idea of buying tiny stuff, so I'll pass. There's no way I'll buy any DLC for any game. Ever. If it was a full size expansion on a disk instead of a virtual purchase with lousy Microsuck points, I'd grab it on its release date.

inb4 "LOL hypokrit u dont haef Dragun Age Awakenunk in ur profile"

I'll get Awakening as soon as I'm in the mood.

I respect this. Don't like it don't buy it attitude. Well done Sir.

[CatatonicMan]

FrostGun wrote...

time is only one aspect of gaming.

2 games can both be 2 hours long but i may like one over the other. similarly, i would rather play a quality 20 hour game than a crap 100 hour game. by your logic the 100 hour game is the better game.

Edit: assuming both games cost the same

That might be true were we discussing two different games, but we are not. The DLC is in essence a part of ME2, and can therefore be judged by something as simple as playtime. As long as the DLC is of the same general 'level' as the root game (quality, fun, functionality, etc - you know, all the subjective properties), then you can effectively drop them out and judge by the more objective standards.

This wouldn't work when comparing, say, ME2 and Crysis (or even ME1, really) - they are not 'related' enough to be able to remove all the subjective measurements - but it should be reasonably consistent in this instance to be useful.

[Kandid001]

Too tired to detect sarcasm at this hour, but if you do mean it, thanks.

[FrostGun]

Kandid001 wrote...

Too tired to detect sarcasm at this hour, but if you do mean it, thanks.

I mean it.

[demongirl420]

i hate i have to pay for the 12 member of the team. so im not. freetokenshttp://social.bioware.com/brc/967354

[FrostGun]

CatatonicMan wrote...
That might be true were we discussing two different games, but we are not. The DLC is in essence a part of ME2, and can therefore be judged by something as simple as playtime. As long as the DLC is of the same general 'level' as the root game (quality, fun, functionality, etc - you know, all the subjective properties), then you can effectively drop them out and judge by the more objective standards.

This wouldn't work when comparing, say, ME2 and Crysis (or even ME1, really) - they are not 'related' enough to be able to remove all the subjective measurements - but it should be reasonably consistent in this instance to be useful.

So it just boils down to you dont think its worth the $7 for kasumi, whilst i do. And i believe for $7, is worth the quality for kasumi than say hammerhead. But i guess in the end its 'to each their own'.

[NitrAce]

Kasumi's an effing ninja! It's 7 bucks and I'd rather pay that for the hour and half I put into the Kasumi DLC than 15 dollars to IW for maps in a rehash of Call of Duty 4. I just hope that after this they don't get into the habit of charging for less than two hours of gameplay even if it is cheap. More game time next DLC please.

Also I would have liked that Kasumi had unique dialogue options unlike Zaeed...

[Amairmeh]

The problem with most RPGs especially Jrpgs is the lack of story, they dont use writers anymore just concept ideas, which lead to bad dialog, loop holes, contradictions, which causes players to lose connection with the main character/s. The problem with a 100 hour game is, there can only be told so much before a plot line can be drawn out and become bland or boring.

http://social.bioware.com/brc/1529357

[RAIDENKUN]

FrostGun wrote...

RAIDENKUN wrote...

You're right, that analogy is terrible. In some sense the argument is valid, but specifically applied to the situation of DLC it doesn't hold its weight. A better analogy would be "I'll sell you a car (a video game) for regular price. Of course if you'd like windshield wipers, a horn, and a brake (DLC) you'll have to buy them separately. Oh and you'll need to buy them with an imaginary form of money that only my car dealership accepts. It shouldn't be a big deal though because you don't really NEED them to drive your car." Obviously this is far from a perfect analogy, but I think it starts to grasp the complexity of the situation. Nobody wants 85% of a video game. I want the whole thing. I didn't NEED Kasumi, but she adds to the experience.

I don't know where you are from but those are a NEED for anycar. Here in Aus, your car is not fit on the road without those.

Every DLC adds to experience. Even the $2 costume pack. or the hammerhead. Or the  Cerberus + shotgun pack.

Like I said, not a perfect analogy. The idea is that you can bring your car to a stop by coasting long enough in neutral then downshifting to park, a horn is really only necessary in emergencies/ when you're pissed, and if it's raining - don't drive. Obviously these are extreme examples (I was hoping it would make my point abundantly clear, but apparently I came short of that). The idea I'm trying to convey is that when people buy a whole unit of something ( a video game, a car, a box of cereal, whatever), they expect not to have to buy additional $5 upgrades every month in order to keep it current. Yes, all of the DLC adds to the game. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this point. My take on it however is that it's a bit ridiculous to pay $2 here, $7 there, another couple of bucks next month (and on, and on, and on) for a complete game. I'll gladly pay a flat rate for a disc of all the content or even just a flat rate for all the downloads. But I have to keep buying odd numbers of Microsoft points whenever I want to make a purchase and it's getting old fast. I don't want a partial version of ME2, so to say "if you don't like it. don't buy it" falls short of grasping the entirety of the situation. I like M&Ms, but I don't buy them one at a time. I buy a pack and I'm done. I got what I paid for, no more, no less. If I want another pack I buy it. That's as simply as I can state it.

[Hyperion_500]

Okay, guys, PLEASE, some of you are just starting to insult each other, be constructive, ideas, not insults!

scyphozoa wrote...

Hyperion it sounds like you want EA to make less profits to make your experience more comfortable.

I don't disagree with you but I think asking a company to make less profit for any reason is ridiculous. We can't even get companies that pollute earth with toxic waste to stop because it will reduce their profits, there is no way that extra customer comfort is going to convince any company in the video game industry to cut their profit margin.

I'm thinking a little more about this, currently their system is actually LESS profitable in this way, since they have to convert the money we send into points, then they must store the points on system, etc etc.

of course if they wanted to make more profits, a more sensible way would be to spend wisely, eg:

less money making their main website look pretty, it takes me about 10 minutes to load the main tech page using my current cable connection as it is, gear it more towards function, there are FAR more efficient ways to be aesthetic. Revamp the company, especially tech support, where the server they store their search engine on is currently as useful as a boat anchor. actual tech skill (at least first level) is repetative:

(it took 1 1/2 weeks for 3 techs to realize they had all asked me the same set of questions about 2 days appart for ME 1, even though i had answered those same questions in the pre tech support questionnaire, they didn't read the whole ticket report.  the 4th tech, day 11, actually knew what all the info on the DX diag sheet meant, specific sound card conflict, then not actually on EA's compatability issue sheet for ME 1, though they knew of it)

being a tech myself, those first 3 techs could have been compressed to 1, no excuse for that sort of repetition. and the fact that the sound card issue should have already been on the self help? well, you can guess how it needs to be addressed. they wasted not just time, but the paycheck total of 4 techs during that time.

another tech once digitally assigned to me did not know about the game i was calling about, and could not tell the difference between 'pre ordered content' and 'in all hardcopy purchases'

so they can't say they need more money, they really just need to use it more wisely. hiding behind points, smoke and mirrors LOOKS proffessional, but to actual techs is actually a waste of EA's resources.

Modifié par Hyperion_500, 08 avril 2010 - 03:43 .

[FrostGun]

@RAIDENKUN



ok lets look at it at a different angle. If you were the developers, would you be more motivated if you got paid when creating additional content?.



If we were to be charged flat rate, that would be a ripoff as they will need to take into account all of the DLCs they will put out. Thus the price will be a LOT higher. Additionally they will take away our choices. We would have paid for the $2 costume pack for instance (included in the flat rate). Which i think is a complete meh.

[Reinholder]

FrostGun wrote...

@RAIDENKUN

ok lets look at it at a different angle. If you were the developers, would you be more motivated if you got paid when creating additional content?.

If we were to be charged flat rate, that would be a ripoff as they will need to take into account all of the DLCs they will put out. Thus the price will be a LOT higher. Additionally they will take away our choices. We would have paid for the $2 costume pack for instance (included in the flat rate). Which i think is a complete meh.

I'm at least with you there. ME2 took me a week and a bit to complete, where as GoW, GoW2, MW, MW2, BF:BC2 and ALL of the Halo series, I completed in a day. Value for money? Sure, you could argue that.

[RAIDENKUN]

@FrostGun



Naturally the flat rate would be determined after the content is released. To set that price before creating the content would do a disservice to someone's pocketbook. Ideally the content would be bundled onto a disk (although download is fine by me) and preferably discounted (due to the fact that the bundled content would be released much further down the line than the individual downloads). I understand everyone wants to make money (even developers believe it or not) but adding $2 to the price of all of their content isn't going to provide the incentive for a developer to wake up in the morning and go to work. Were the developers at Bethesda who made horse armor in Oblivion any more motivated than the developers who made Point Lookout for Fallout 3? Both were paid content, so what can be attributed to the disparity in quality? Bioware is renowned for high quality content, so to insinuate that their paid content is the only type that they ought to put effort into is unjustifiable. Shouldn't all of their content be up to par simply because it's their content. Should lawyers who take pro bono cases do a worse job than lawyers who charge millions? Should the water from your tap be any worse than the water bottled at a factory? Since when is "free" considered a bad term?

As far as arguing about choice, I contend once again that I want a full game. One could choose to download individually and exercise their free will to choose or buy the bundled content. It's not an either/or ultimatum, it actually broadens your choices. I can choose to have 100% of the game at a modified cost at a later date, or a I can choose to have a portion of the game at cost when it releases. I don't see how someone could argue against bundling content. I can't see one benefit to microtransactions.

[riddick 116]

I think it should be $5 since dlcs are normally in increments of $5 and plus wtf am i sopose to spend my $3 worth of ms points on? if they wanted to make money off of it that bad, why not just add a bit more running around in the casual outfit shooting up some guards and charge $10

[Hyperion_500]

this debate i'm now seeing on actual pricing of DLC is very good guys, could you try to debate what methods of payment would be best as well? pricing is certainly important, but my desire is for this debate is whether or not payment methods are effective, worthwhile, etc.? eg, my concern that points are just complicating a system already perfectly functional using actual currency.

(edit) some ideas:
since actual currency creates some customer security, being legally enforceable, and not forcing service,

is forcing use of monetarily worthless points, sacrificing ethics for profit? Especially if abandoning ethics could hurt profits overall, in other words, let's give the moderators something that makes EA stop and think about their marketing strategy!

Modifié par Hyperion_500, 08 avril 2010 - 04:15 .

[RAIDENKUN]

@ riddick

Because Microsoft wants you to turn around and spend that $3 of Microsoft points on an outfit for your avatar. Or an arcade game that you can play for free on the internet. Then again you can just leave them in the bank and let them expire. So many choices. Thanks Microsoft.

Modifié par RAIDENKUN, 08 avril 2010 - 04:14 .

[RAIDENKUN]

@ Hyperion



I don't think that's there is actually an argument FOR using a points system. The problem is that nothing we can say about it will give the Moderators reason for pause. Short of a full out boycott of the points system, I can't see any other way to repeal the status quo of the bioware/microsoft points system. As I said before, you're presented with the choice to either give in or give up. It's proven that a currency based system works (as evidenced by the PS3's content purchasing system in USD). For the legal and psychological reasons listed previously by yourself, the points system remains.

[Hyperion_500]

RAIDENKUN wrote...

@ Hyperion

I don't think that's there is actually an argument FOR using a points system. The problem is that nothing we can say about it will give the Moderators reason for pause. Short of a full out boycott of the points system, I can't see any other way to repeal the status quo of the bioware/microsoft points system. As I said before, you're presented with the choice to either give in or give up. It's proven that a currency based system works (as evidenced by the PS3's content purchasing system in USD). For the legal and psychological reasons listed previously by yourself, the points system remains.

i suppose what i mean is, is the point system potentially scaring off wary customers?
does it actually provide any reasonable profit for (what some would consider) unethical forcing of payment?
EA's marketing strategy (intentional or not) comes across as fatiquing those who purchase games they distibute into forced purchases for content that should be more flexible to purchase, it also seems to eliminate legal safeguards for consumers through technicality

does this hurt their business? does it hurt the gaming industry as a whole? will it ultimately be better for them to force compliance (possibly even risking the sort of wrath microsoft got a few years ago for monopolizing their industry?) or to create flexible payment, is customer loyalty more important than slightly higher profits? could they attract more developers by not steamrolling their will like this?

[Reinholder]

Hyperion_500 wrote...

i suppose what i mean is, is the point system potentially scaring off wary customers?
does it actually provide any reasonable profit for (what some would consider) unethical forcing of payment?
EA's marketing strategy (intentional or not) comes across as fatiquing those who purchase games they distibute into forced purchases for content that should be more flexible to purchase, it also seems to eliminate legal safeguards for consumers through technicality

does this hurt their business? does it hurt the gaming industry as a whole? will it ultimately be better for them to force compliance (possibly even risking the sort of wrath microsoft got a few years ago for monopolizing their industry?) or to create flexible payment, is customer loyalty more important than slightly higher profits? could they attract more developers by not steamrolling their will like this?

Of course it does. I'm one of those people that likes a phsyical transaction, and physical media - Now the fact that Microsoft has chosen to release a 250gb hard drive as opposed to a complete upgrade to their hardware shows a clear map in their gameplan - as opposed to sony, microsoft fully believe that DLC is the future, and they may well be right. It still doesn't alter the fact that considering bioware belong to EA, it would cost them nothing to set up a physical media distribution model, whereby I could walk down to my local gamestation and pick up a disk.