142 réponses à ce sujet

[Gaddmeister]

Darth Drago wrote...


Makes you wonder if there will be some regulatory system set up soon about setting prices and the content they contain. Prices as set by the file size for example in relation to the cost of a $60 game.

Just look at the crap Blizzard is pulling with their vanity pets they are selling at $10 each or the new mount at $25. Or the “stimulus pack” for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Five maps with a file size of 329MB for $15. Kasumi is listed at 991MB if my info is right and only $7. Yet Zaeed was only 421MB.

Clearly something should be set up to regulate prices.

I don't think paying for size is a good idea. Games and dlc vary in size for many different reasons, And why should all new games cost $60 anyway?

[DTKT]

Darth Drago wrote...


Makes you wonder if there will be some regulatory system set up soon about setting prices and the content they contain. Prices as set by the file size for example in relation to the cost of a $60 game.

Just look at the crap Blizzard is pulling with their vanity pets they are selling at $10 each or the new mount at $25. Or the “stimulus pack” for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Five maps with a file size of 329MB for $15. Kasumi is listed at 991MB if my info is right and only $7. Yet Zaeed was only 421MB.

Clearly something should be set up to regulate prices.

I would never look at the actual size of the file to actual set a value for the content. While the Kasumi DLC is a fixed limit of time, 1 or maybe 1 hour and a half, the maps from the stimulus package can last much more than that. That is of course assuming that you actually enjoy the core gameplay of MW2.

Look at the time offered in each package, not at the size versus price, that's just missing the point.

[sammcl]

They could bump the file size with environment detail or something similarly insubstantial though couldn't they? Don't think file size would work, average playtime and quality would be better pricing variables. As long as people don't use the mindset of "good quality for DLC" it has to be judged as part of the game. Kasumi would score well on quality, on par with missions already in ME2, it would also be on par in terms of playtime, which is why if you divide the game price by number of comparable missions as one poster did, Kasumi comes out way overpriced.

There really should be regulations on DLC pricing though, what you said about blizzard selling vanity pets and mounts...I can't believe anyone would find those worth the asking price. At first they were donating a portion of the proceeds to charity, so the high price may have been justifiable, are they still doing that? Still, any cosmetic DLC seems retarded to me, unfortunately there's a market for it =.=

[Atmosfear3]

sammcl wrote...
 
There really should be regulations on DLC pricing though, what you said about blizzard selling vanity pets and mounts...I can't believe anyone would find those worth the asking price. At first they were donating a portion of the proceeds to charity, so the high price may have been justifiable, are they still doing that? Still, any cosmetic DLC seems retarded to me, unfortunately there's a market for it =.=

Thats an understatement.

The celestial steed alone made Blizzard nearly 100 million dollars and it cost them next to nothing since the steed's model was already in the game.

Modifié par Atmosfear3, 22 avril 2010 - 03:14 .

[sammcl]

Seriously? I can't believe the market for overpriced cosmetic DLC is that big =.= Humanity's getting dumber! get rid of reality TV and get rid of cosmetic DLC!

[DTKT]

I think Blizzard is in a very unique situation. It's the only cause behind the push for small micro-transactions.
The have a enormous and very very very "loyal" player base.

Just by the numbers, even if just a small number of player buy the pets, the profit is there. Now, add to that the fact that the entire game is based on "looking cooler and more unique than someone else", every occasion of having something that others might not have is a must.

Blizzard is pretty much alone in there. Comparing it to other companies is kind of "unfair" and just doesnt make any sense.

The company that I would say had the best model for DLC was Gearbox with Borderlands, they felt like proper content. All the DLC were 9.99, that's almost the Kasumi price. Worst? They lasted about 8-10 times the time of Kasumi and offered way more new stuff.
Bioware just never made good paid DLC. Both Dragon Age and ME2 had bad DLC. I wonder if they are going to get it sometimes. But heh, I'm sure I'm being unfair, there must of so many stuff going in the background that we just dont know!

Modifié par DTKT, 22 avril 2010 - 03:24 .

[Gaddmeister]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

sammcl wrote...
 
There really should be regulations on DLC pricing though, what you said about blizzard selling vanity pets and mounts...I can't believe anyone would find those worth the asking price. At first they were donating a portion of the proceeds to charity, so the high price may have been justifiable, are they still doing that? Still, any cosmetic DLC seems retarded to me, unfortunately there's a market for it =.=

Thats an understatement.

The celestial steed alone made Blizzard nearly 100 million dollars and it cost them next to nothing since the steed's model was already in the game.

I'm against any kind of regulation of prices. I'm all for a free market, where companies set their prices and customers choose what to buy. Sure, make your voice heard and lobby for lower prices or whatever, that's all good. But regulations? No thank you.... and congratulations to Blizzard for an ingenious horse scheme.

Modifié par Gaddmeister, 22 avril 2010 - 03:27 .

[JFRICH]

For Myself I liked the Kasumi DLC, but I Did think the cost was slightly higher than it should have been for a single mission, however You do get to use Her as much as you want on other missions. Those Who criticize BioWare for releasing smaller DLC’s instead of an expansion pack should look at all of the whining on this forum for MORE Downloadable content. BioWare is trying to satisfy as many of their customers as possible. I do expect an expansion to be released before ME3 comes out in addition to more DLC!



Just My Two Penny’s Worth:

[sammcl]

If "loyal" is a synonym for "stupid" you might be right I've been playing WoW since a few months after launch with a couple of breaks before expansions. I consider myself a loyal customer but there's no way in hell i'm gonna pay through the roof for cosmetic DLC. For me and many players who have a gaming background WoW is about goal based progression and teamwork. I suspect it's the more casual crowd and possibly the super hardcore who are buying this rubbish

[TJSolo]

Gaddmeister wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

sammcl wrote...
 
There really should be regulations on DLC pricing though, what you said about blizzard selling vanity pets and mounts...I can't believe anyone would find those worth the asking price. At first they were donating a portion of the proceeds to charity, so the high price may have been justifiable, are they still doing that? Still, any cosmetic DLC seems retarded to me, unfortunately there's a market for it =.=

Thats an understatement.

The celestial steed alone made Blizzard nearly 100 million dollars and it cost them next to nothing since the steed's model was already in the game.

I'm against any kind of regulation of prices. I'm all for a free market, where companies set their prices and customers choose what to buy. Sure, make your voice heard and lobby for lower prices or whatever, that's all good. But regulations? No thank you.... and congratulations to Blizzard for an ingenious horse scheme.

I am against the constant abuse capitalism tries in order to take advantage of gullible public.
There is a limit, eventually somesort of regulations and expectancy will come into play.
Pure capitalism can't function.

[JFRICH]

AH..Yes the Gullible Public…Can’t take advantage of Them now can We….Evolution should eventually take care of that for Us

[Darth Drago]

Well the idea of file size would be the best option but it was just a quick suggestion.

How would you regulate content value based on replay value or multiplayer (like maps) value. Obviously a multiplayer pack might have a lot more value on it since its going to be reused a lot more but the single player game downloads like Kasumi still will get value from those who will play ME2 a lot more now. The same thing with song downloads for Guitar Hero.

In comparison (sort of):
Halo 3 Legendary map pack (with I think 3 maps) 411MB for $7.50.

Oh and not all new games cost $60 (x-box 360/ps3 console standard prices) some companies do still have them at $50 or so.

[Taiko Roshi]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

By buying DLC you're not supporting the company, you're supporting the idea that people like spending more on a disjointed series of payed-for DLCs than a single expansion pack.

What about those who prefer to pay lower prices for more frequent content releases, and who don't want to wait for a full-sized expansion? Don't their opinions count too?

 
What about the people who have been waiting six months for BW to patch their game. Don't their opinions count to? I for one think that BW should first fix their games before they even bother with DLC or Expansions. And then, I would much prefer an expansion to over-priced DLC.

Modifié par Taiko Roshi, 22 avril 2010 - 05:39 .

[sammcl]

Maps are almost the worst kind of DLC behind cosmetic DLC, similarly, they should be free. The problem with maps in multiplayer games is that if the playerbase moves on to using those new maps, you can feel pressured to buy them just to keep a decent number of games available to join. They don't really change the gameplay much either, there's mostly the same areas you'll find on any default map. I can't really speak with much experience in online multiplayer, the last online multiplayer game i played aside from WoW was Warcraft 3 and any additional content there was player created or though a proper expansion pack.

[Zinoviy]

sammcl wrote...

Maps are almost the worst kind of DLC behind cosmetic DLC, similarly, they should be free. The problem with maps in multiplayer games is that if the playerbase moves on to using those new maps, you can feel pressured to buy them just to keep a decent number of games available to join. They don't really change the gameplay much either, there's mostly the same areas you'll find on any default map. I can't really speak with much experience in online multiplayer, the last online multiplayer game i played aside from WoW was Warcraft 3 and any additional content there was player created or though a proper expansion pack.

You are against a regulation and standardization of DLC prices across the industry, yet at the same time you want to remove optional DLC for cosmetic items.

If other people want a cosmetic item, and are willing to pay for it, who are you to say they shouldn't have it? You aren't being forced to buy it.

It's quite simple: if you're a free market guy none of this should bother you at all. You should just not buy it if you don't believe the DLC is worth the asking price.

[Darth Drago]

sammcl wrote...

Maps are almost the worst kind of DLC behind cosmetic DLC, similarly, they should be free. The problem with maps in multiplayer games is that if the playerbase moves on to using those new maps, you can feel pressured to buy them just to keep a decent number of games available to join. They don't really change the gameplay much either, there's mostly the same areas you'll find on any default map. I can't really speak with much experience in online multiplayer, the last online multiplayer game i played aside from WoW was Warcraft 3 and any additional content there was player created or though a proper expansion pack.

For a game that has a large multiplayer aspect to it like Halo 3 or Call of Duty Modern Warfare, maps are the best way to expand the game to keep it fresh and add more replay value. At least in the multiplayer part. You wouldn’t expect one of these games to release something like what you would get in a single player game.

[Zinoviy]

slimgrin wrote...

Zinoviy wrote...

sammcl wrote...

Maps are almost the worst kind of DLC behind cosmetic DLC, similarly, they should be free. The problem with maps in multiplayer games is that if the playerbase moves on to using those new maps, you can feel pressured to buy them just to keep a decent number of games available to join. They don't really change the gameplay much either, there's mostly the same areas you'll find on any default map. I can't really speak with much experience in online multiplayer, the last online multiplayer game i played aside from WoW was Warcraft 3 and any additional content there was player created or though a proper expansion pack.

You are against a regulation and standardization of DLC prices across the industry, yet at the same time you want to remove optional DLC for cosmetic items.

If other people want a cosmetic item, and are willing to pay for it, who are you to say they shouldn't have it? You aren't being forced to buy it.

It's quite simple: if you're a free market guy none of this should bother you at all. You should just not buy it if you don't believe the DLC is worth the asking price.

And what if all we get are recylcled maps and costume packs?  It's a free market, afterall. 

According to the rules of free market if it's what the people want, it will survive. If it's crap and nobody buys it, the product won't live.

Also, my cosmetic DLC comment was aimed more toward general DLCs, an example being Blizzard's Celestial Steed. Do I want 'cosmetic' DLC for Mass Effect? Not really, but we're getting more than that. Who cares if they release costume packs, anyway? You don't have to buy them.

Modifié par Zinoviy, 22 avril 2010 - 04:15 .

[Xapctag]

My biggest beef with video game companies right now are those obnoxious enough to charge $60 for PC titles. I don't know what was the excuse to start charging $60 for console games and frankly it doesn't matter to me, but now that PC games are following it makes me uneasy. I don't support pirating but when games are getting progressively more expensive...add that to the overpriced DLCs we seem to be getting I can see why people might resort to such actions.



Regarding DLCs in general. Never liked the idea, never will, especially for the PC. I bought the Kasumi DLC because I want to support BioWare and all that they are doing, but honestly, it was way overpriced.



Just my two cents.

[askanec]

I always have a problem in deciding what I should buy. Fortunately, thanks to this thread, I know now there are always great people in the Internet telling me where to spend my money.



Wouldn't the world be a much better place if some random person on the Internet can dictate what the rest of us should consume?You just can't trust people to make their own decisions. It'll be chaos!

[Zinoviy]

slimgrin wrote...

askanec wrote...

I always have a problem in deciding what I should buy. Fortunately, thanks to this thread, I know now there are always great people in the Internet telling me where to spend my money.

Wouldn't the world be a much better place if some random person on the Internet can dictate what the rest of us should consume?You just can't trust people to make their own decisions. It'll be chaos!

How are Thane's shades working out for you?

You're trying to be elitist here in a position where you really can't be, although I know you will try harder after reading this post.

[sammcl]

Zinoviy wrote...

sammcl wrote...

Maps are almost the worst kind of DLC behind cosmetic DLC, similarly, they should be free. The problem with maps in multiplayer games is that if the playerbase moves on to using those new maps, you can feel pressured to buy them just to keep a decent number of games available to join. They don't really change the gameplay much either, there's mostly the same areas you'll find on any default map. I can't really speak with much experience in online multiplayer, the last online multiplayer game i played aside from WoW was Warcraft 3 and any additional content there was player created or though a proper expansion pack.

You are against a regulation and standardization of DLC prices across the industry, yet at the same time you want to remove optional DLC for cosmetic items.

If other people want a cosmetic item, and are willing to pay for it, who are you to say they shouldn't have it? You aren't being forced to buy it.

It's quite simple: if you're a free market guy none of this should bother you at all. You should just not buy it if you don't believe the DLC is worth the asking price.

I actually said I was for regulation, I don't think my latest post contradicts the one before, but maybe it does and I haven't realised where.

There really should be regulations on DLC pricing though, what you said about blizzard selling vanity pets and mounts...I can't believe anyone would find those worth the asking price. At first they were donating a portion of the proceeds to charity, so the high price may have been justifiable, are they still doing that? Still, any cosmetic DLC seems retarded to me, unfortunately there's a market for it =.=

I do indeed want to get rid of overpriced cosmetic DLC because there are people dumb enough to buy it and all that does is send a message to videogame companies that we're ok with their greed, we'll start seeing more and more firewalker quality DLC and less Kasumi quality, overpriced as it was, it was good quality. I'd love to use the term "exploitation" because that's how it feels to me, unfortunately in a free market if consumers feel the product is valuable and are willing to pay outrageously for it, it can't technically be called exploitation. The map pack thing might be closer to exploitation in that if you want to keep playing you pretty much have to go with the rest of the playerbase whether you like it or not.

[Edix]

The ****ing problem I have with ****ing DLC is not the price or the content. Everything is set up in the ****ing crazy point number. 560. WHAT THE ****? I can only buy 800 points.



No. I will not buy your points. Give me a ****ing USD and I'll ****ing buy your DLC. Until then go **** your self and your point system.