142 réponses à ce sujet

[TJSolo]

hex23 wrote...

False. There is no such thing as a "measure of value" considering no one agrees on what exactly it is.

You saying somoene spending $7 is "short sighted and immediate gratification" is proof of this. The person is spending that money because they want to. You can spin that or frame it however you want for you own agenda, but it doesn't chang reality. You think it's too much, others don't. Period. This simple difference of opinion is exactly why "consistency in DLC pricing" is virtually impossible. For every 1 person complaining about Kasumi there is probably 5 that plopped down the $7. Who do you think EA is going to listen to? A few guys spread across 4 pages, or people who actually went out and spoke with their wallets?

Measure of value exists, it is subjective but still a true concept behind the idea of pricing and buying.
MSRP is one very clear measure of value in place.  The measure of value is also apparent in the free market when there are competitors around, the DLC industry has not reached a similar point yet.

You and you imaginery supposition about who pays and who is happy with the DLC,for every 1 person complaining there are 5 that bought it that is not even remotely close to the ratio of people that buy a game versus buying the DLC for that game.
You are ignoring the fact that the people in this thread are not limited to just this thread. The opinions are from people that have voted with their wallets AND choose to post here in that regard.

The DLC pricing is changing in the industry. Being consumers being vocal about is similar to companies having their pricing coordination meetings. While there are consumers/companies that will put up and buy small DLC for $7 there are consumers/companies that would never bother to buy or offer small DLC at that price.

This is what a discussion is, add your thoughts as you please but attempting to say the discussion is irrelevant so therefore should not exist is insulting and does not contribute positively to the conversation

[Stoko981]

hex23 wrote...

Stoko981 wrote...

Dude, it's overpriced, that's the point of the thread, not whether or not you bought it anyway. You don't care that it's overpriced, you bought it anyway. Great, that's fine. I don't care that you don't care. I'm not talking about you or how you spend your money. I think they're charging too much for it, other people apparently do too, so we're talking about it. It's a message board. If you don't like the subject we're discussing, why are you in the topic?

I can't imagine how empty the board would end up if all the topics I imagine you must consider "lengthy angsty philosophical debates" were deleted. It's a reasonable, realistic concern we're discussing. What did you think we'd say in response to your post? "Oh yeah, sorry man, you're right, the way you spend your money is none of our business. We take it all back, lock please, mods?" Hardly.

It's over priced to you. It's not to me. So.....who is right? How can there be consistency in pricing when nobody agrees?

For the record I don't have a problem with people saying it's over priced. I do however have a problem with people trying to tell others they're "wrong" or "bad at addition" for choosing to buy it. That's why I came here. If you didn't do that then obviously I wasn't addressing you, so I have no idea why you quoted me. It's not as if I singled you out.

Your initial post wasn't addressed to anyone and I made the thread so I figured I'd respond. Didn't recall seeing that many posts that were addressing the people who had paid for it rather than the cost itself either. Just wanted to put it to you that that wasn't the point of the thread and it's not what most people have been saying, so just randomly barging in calling unspecified people "pathetic", telling them to "mind [their] own business" and asking how old they are, seemed a bit random. Maybe if you had addressed a (couple of?) specific individual(s) your post would've made more sense.

[Pocketgb]

Personally, all DLC looks overpriced when you look at Valve's prices for the PC. One need to look at the cost of all the TF2 - and very recently L4D2 - content to really feel "gipped".

Modifié par Pocketgb, 22 avril 2010 - 11:53 .

[Brako Shepard]

I seriously cannot say that any of the DLC for any of the Mass Effect games has ever been over priced.



One thing I am not sure about, is who the cost goes to when someone buys the Mass Effect avatar costumes. Fair enough if its going to BioWare, but if its going into MS's pocket, then I think BioWare are actually undercharging for the game DLC.



300+ points nets you a costume for your Avatar which you can't do anything with. 560 points gets you a mission pack DLC that you can play in different way for aslong as you want. You get different conversation situations when you go to different locations, and all this for less than £5. Then there is all the free stuff they have thrown our way. Even the costumes are a brilliant price seeing as you once again get to see them at different parts of the game and gives the characters a fresh look (although Thane looks a tool in his 80's shades).



I guess I am going to have to say this is all my own opinion of course. But when you look at Games like FIFA 2010 charge people 120 MS for a frikkin card pack that does not mean they will get the best players. Forza sells car packs for 800 MS points and people only usually like 1 or 2 of the cars at most. BioWare are giving us additions that we know what we are getting, and more importantly...BioWare are not forcing anyone to buy them, but those that do are getting quality.

[Jackal904]

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?

The thing is, is that more people prefer full-sized expansions even if they have to wait much longer. Everyone I have talked to prefers it that way. I created a thread on this, and everyone agreed that they'd prefer large expansions over small add-ons, even thought it means they would have to wait much longer for them to be released.

[Gorn Kregore]

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?

wooo frauding people to stimulate the economy

[Brako Shepard]

Who's to say they don't have people making an expansion aswel as monthly type add-ons?



No one knows what is planned behind the scenes. If we get a big expansion that would be amazing. If we didn't get the expansion but monthly type DLC mission packs...its still groovy.

[vhatever]

I paid 50 bucks for L4D2, and I was done with it in a weekend. Same money for ME2 and still playing it several months later.

Yoink.

[Pocketgb]

Jackal904 wrote...

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?

The thing is, is that more people prefer full-sized expansions even if they have to wait much longer. Everyone I have talked to prefers it that way. I created a thread on this, and everyone agreed that they'd prefer large expansions over small add-ons, even thought it means they would have to wait much longer for them to be released.

Depends on the implementation, really. I think I'd like Awakening a whole lot more if all or most of the quests were stitched to the main plot, allowing you to recruit Justice and the like during the main campaign. But maybe I prefer it that way largely because the whole expansion felt pretty weak, overall.

Regardless, I'm pretty indifferent towards expansions-or-smallDLC as long as what I get is enjoyable and full of quality. I don't really care much about the price either since all of the awesome bad-ass content I've gotten for TF2 has been completely free of charge. (Of course, I'm pretty sure that a $30 for the appearance pack would be quite a rip-off. Don't care either way, since I don't like the costumes).

Modifié par Pocketgb, 23 avril 2010 - 12:16 .

[Pocketgb]

Never was able to really get into the L4D series, really. Sure it was fun around here at my work for awhile (a LAN center) playing Versus where no one knew what they were doing, but that was about it. I don't find a whole lot of replayability in simply rearranging the environments.



But regardless, it's pretty cool to see it too get the free-DLC treatment for the PC (sorry console guys, but Microsoft hates you).

[Axeface]

Just want to add to this thread that I'm happy with the price of the Kasumi DLC. I think its a fair price for what you receive.

I am NOT however, happy that we have to use this new form of currency (Points), that was purely created (Envisioned by microsoft, i believe) to make you pay more than the asking price, with 'points' left over that you are never going to use. It's disgusting.

[Razor_Zeng]

TJSolo wrote...



Measure of value exists, it is subjective but still a true concept behind the idea of pricing and buying.

MSRP is one very clear measure of value in place. The measure of value is also apparent in the free market when there are competitors around, the DLC industry has not reached a similar point yet.

Best way for competition to work would be for anyone to be able to create and sell after market addons for other peoples games.



Why? Because you can buy after market stuff for things in the real world. Don't like the mags on your car? Change them to a different type. Don't like the DLC BioWare are selling? Buy MegaRippingChickens DLC instead.



This is never going to happen. Therefore measure of value for DLC is up to the individual consumer to decide not the overall market place.



I like it and think it is priced ok. Ill buy it. If i think its over priced I won't buy it.

[Edix]

piemanz wrote...

YR_Lim wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

YR_Lim wrote...

Edix wrote...

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.

I second that, you said that you are selling for 560 points but we have to pay the price of 800 points, this is UNETHICAL!

All you have to do is click 'Profile' on the left,then 'Add Bioware Points' and you can buy exactly 560 points.....

Thats the point behind the system. You always end up having spare points, that usually are not enough to buy something from it alone, so you have to fill your stock again to buy the next DLC...which again leaves you with spare points that you dont want to go to waste etc. etc..
And starting out with "free" DLC (eventhough it was paid with the game already) just softens up the customer for the DLC idea...that all is suspiciously close to what drug dealers are doing.
And the quality/prizing? Horse armor, alternative appearance pack, MW2 map pack, flying WoW pony...these are things everyone laughs and complains about but somehow enough people buy it to make it profitable.

Yea I know that is the point of the system, which is why I am against it.

Money good, points bad...free is best!

If you hover over 'Profile' on the left,then 'Add Bioware Points' ,you can buy exactly 560 points....

Also to the OP, you cant really compare anyone to valve when it comes to DLC ,they are the exception to the rule especially if you own a PC ,pretty much all their content is free.As far as i know the only reason they charge for the Xbox is because microshaft forces it.

That point value magicly appeard over night. Also, if you go to Games-MassEffect2-DLC then click on the DLC then go to Add Points it takes you to a page without that point value avalible.

[YR_Lim]

Edix wrote...

piemanz wrote...

YR_Lim wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

YR_Lim wrote...

Edix wrote...

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.

I second that, you said that you are selling for 560 points but we have to pay the price of 800 points, this is UNETHICAL!

All you have to do is click 'Profile' on the left,then 'Add Bioware Points' and you can buy exactly 560 points.....

Thats the point behind the system. You always end up having spare points, that usually are not enough to buy something from it alone, so you have to fill your stock again to buy the next DLC...which again leaves you with spare points that you dont want to go to waste etc. etc..
And starting out with "free" DLC (eventhough it was paid with the game already) just softens up the customer for the DLC idea...that all is suspiciously close to what drug dealers are doing.
And the quality/prizing? Horse armor, alternative appearance pack, MW2 map pack, flying WoW pony...these are things everyone laughs and complains about but somehow enough people buy it to make it profitable.

Yea I know that is the point of the system, which is why I am against it.

Money good, points bad...free is best!

If you hover over 'Profile' on the left,then 'Add Bioware Points' ,you can buy exactly 560 points....

Also to the OP, you cant really compare anyone to valve when it comes to DLC ,they are the exception to the rule especially if you own a PC ,pretty much all their content is free.As far as i know the only reason they charge for the Xbox is because microshaft forces it.

That point value magicly appeard over night. Also, if you go to Games-MassEffect2-DLC then click on the DLC then go to Add Points it takes you to a page without that point value avalible.

Yea that.

[sammcl]

There's been a bunch of talk about differing measures of value and why people should care where other choose to spend their money. I don't necessarily care where people spend their money but i do care that large developers/publishers are allowed to radically overcharge for their DLC. Yes, consumers can vote with their wallets but the reality is that a lot of them don't. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people who thought Kasumi was overpriced still bought it. Whether they're just hooked on the game and wanted more or wanted to support bioware, they went against their own measure of value and bought Kasumi. I've said it before, I'll say it again, Kasumi was good quality DLC, I enjoyed it, I overpayed It wasn't a complete and utter rip off but it was overpriced.

Now Blizzard's cosmetic DLC, 25 smackeroos for a celestial steed. There are over a hundred mounts already in the game that are almost functionally identical, you may need one mount for walking and a different one for flying but you get the job done. It doesn't have any elitist stigma attached to it because it's not rare, anyone can buy it. All Blizzard had to do was have an artist re-skin the already existing "Invincible" mount. To charge $25 for purely cosmetic DLC is outrageous, yet I saw about 20 of them last night in Dalaran.

Many industries have regulated prices to protect the consumer. As another poster said there should be competition in DLC and that's the problem, each developer has a monopoly on DLC for their games, you can't get DLC for WoW from Bioware. Monopolies are usually highly regulated to make sure they don't take advantage of their status as the only possible supplier of a product to rip off consumers. Unfortunately this hasn't happened to DLC, sure we can all just not buy it, but that won't happen, for a number of reasons people will still buy overpriced DLC. Until prices are regulated, consumers will continue to get ripped off by greedy developers and publishers.



I hope that monopoly observation is correct, i mean you could say just play a different game but in the context of the DLC market, each game has only one supplier. Full fledged downloadable game from Wiiware, PSN or XBLA are different in that those games don't require that you already own a retail game to play. Anyone see a hole in this analogy?

[AlanC9]

sammcl wrote...
I hope that monopoly observation is correct, i mean you could say just play a different game but in the context of the DLC market, each game has only one supplier. Full fledged downloadable game from Wiiware, PSN or XBLA are different in that those games don't require that you already own a retail game to play. Anyone see a hole in this analogy?

The obvious hole is that it's a very restrictive view of the market. McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs -- you can go to Burger King, Wendy's, any number of non-chain restaurants, but you can't get a Big Mac at any of them. Nobody cares that McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs because if they raise prices too much on those people will just decide that a Whopper isn't that bad after all.

Is DLC like a Big Mac, or is it more like an iPad?

[sammcl]

I guess, i was thinking that DLC for each game can't really be substituted like a Big Mac can be with a Whopper. You can either get the DLC or you can not get it, you can't choose to get DLC for any particular game from another source.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, but you can buy some other game with the DLC money.

Any product can be monopolized if the customer refuses to use anything else.

Or to put it another way, anyone who's willing to pay a monopolist's price rather than substitute something else deserves to pay that price.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 avril 2010 - 06:41 .

[Klimy]

AlanC9 wrote...
Any product can be monopolized if the customer refuses to use anything else.

Or to put it another way, anyone who's willing to pay a monopolist's price rather than substitute something else deserves to pay that price.

I never saw monopoly as a bad thing, as long as a products of high quality and i need/want them I really don't care if there are alternatives.
Monopoly can change into bad thing if they don't give a rats *** to what they produce and we don't have any choice but to buy it. But this is not the case here.

Mass Effect is a product of BW and its not opened source, thus they keep all rights to do whatever. But if you don't like their products you still can go and buy other awsome games out there and buy thier DLC instead.

Maybe I'm buying wronge games but all DLC no matter what game it is costs more or less the same, and very often their DLC is far away (in a bad sence) from BW ones, while price tag is the same.

It's more of industry pricing in general rather than BW/EA pricing.

For example Metro 2033 going to release DLC that do not add anything to the game, in a best case it will be new looks of weapons or such. But I bet it will cost about 560MSP too, and somehow noone complain about it in their forums.

I see it more of a change of game distribution in general, as companies start to abandon paper manuals and shift more into digital distrebution. And as any such major change it comes to a poitn when it costs a lot. Like remember how much cost LCD monitors when they just came out? now it costs much less. So when we get a proper infrastructure for digital distribution and it will be common thing, then pricing and as many call it "value-per-dollar" will change as well.

But there is nothing to discuss here, its how things are these days. Everyone do it.

[sammcl]

Heh, looks like I have a complete opposite view to yours I see your definition of a substitute as too broad, you see mine as too narrow. To me DLC is a complimentary product so the market for DLC is current game owners, if we assume they like the game and would be open to DLC, their choice is restricted to DLC offered by the developer, or no DLC at all. Another game is a substitute in terms of an entertainment product but not in terms of DLC, you can't use the new game to enhance the value of your current game. Likewise, DLC for a different game is a substitute as an entertainment product but since it cannot be used for the game in question, it is not a true substitute for that DLC.

As a parallel example, consider you have a PS3, you could play any number of PS3 games on the system. You could also go out and buy and Xbox game, it's almost a perfect substitute except that you can't play it on your PS3. Your PS3 is ME2, your PS3 games are the DLC, your XBox game is all other available games you could spend your money on over DLC. The market for PS3 games is PS3 owners, likewise the market for DLC is owners of the main game. Some games are system sellers marketed towards non-owners as well but that doesn't really apply to the DLC example, rarely will someone buy a game purely for the DLC. The difference between the markets is that PS3 games are made by multiple developers who have to keep their prices competitive, DLC is made by only one developer who can charge whatever they want.

[sammcl]

Klimy wrote...

I see it more of a change of game distribution in general, as companies start to abandon paper manuals and shift more into digital distrebution. And as any such major change it comes to a poitn when it costs a lot. Like remember how much cost LCD monitors when they just came out? now it costs much less. So when we get a proper infrastructure for digital distribution and it will be common thing, then pricing and as many call it "value-per-dollar" will change as well.

But there is nothing to discuss here, its how things are these days. Everyone do it.

Except that digital distribution is actually cheaper to do for the developer, while the R&D costs associated with creating LCD monitors justified the high price tag. Similarly DLC is generally cheaper and quicker for a developer to produce, they're working off the same engine, probably using a lot of the same artwork and music. DLC should theoretically already be cheaper than it currently is, but because DLC for any particular game is only supplied by one developer, they pretty much have free reign over pricing. Even if not many people buy it, they will probably be able to cover the costs of production.

[Klimy]

sammcl wrote...

Heh, looks like I have a complete opposite view to yours I see your definition of a substitute as too broad, you see mine as too narrow. To me DLC is a complimentary product so the market for DLC is current game owners, if we assume they like the game and would be open to DLC, their choice is restricted to DLC offered by the developer, or no DLC at all. Another game is a substitute in terms of an entertainment product but not in terms of DLC, you can't use the new game to enhance the value of your current game. Likewise, DLC for a different game is a substitute as an entertainment product but since it cannot be used for the game in question, it is not a true substitute for that DLC.
As a parallel example, consider you have a PS3, you could play any number of PS3 games on the system. You could also go out and buy and Xbox game, it's almost a perfect substitute except that you can't play it on your PS3. Your PS3 is ME2, your PS3 games are the DLC, your XBox game is all other available games you could spend your money on over DLC. The market for PS3 games is PS3 owners, likewise the market for DLC is owners of the main game. Some games are system sellers marketed towards non-owners as well but that doesn't really apply to the DLC example, rarely will someone buy a game purely for the DLC. The difference between the markets is that PS3 games are made by multiple developers who have to keep their prices competitive, DLC is made by only one developer who can charge whatever they want.

**English is not my native language, took me 3 times to get what you mean, hope I understood you right**

Intersting point, didn't give it much thought before. You are right that company can attempt to lower the costs of sub-product (aka DLC) and thus higher amount of people who buy it. But will it be then price dumping towards other producers that will force them to lower their prices in order to keep looking good?
**thought out load: I really don't think they care**
But you might be right, im not saying you are wrong, I just like my way of thinking better (**makes me sleap better at night**). And glad there are different points of view that can properly define their reasons of thinking so, thus world will not change into midless zombies (**abstractly speaking**).

I think in order to find a truth in this, we need first to get more information on the following points:
- how much money was spent on the production of this or that DLC.
- how much company have to pay to Sony or MS for using their PSN/XBox Live service.
Maybe in the end price will seem very little in sence of profit?

Like one time I knew a woman who was selling dogs and her prices were crazy high, but she showed me all the recietes from veterinars, passports and so on, and in the end from 900£ a person would pay she was getting only 50£ in profit.

[sammcl]

Yeah, there may be other costs involved in production that eat away at a developer's profit margin. I don't think Bioware has horrendously overpriced content but I do think it's overpriced. Blizzard on the other hand....that $USD25 celestial steed would have been easily patched into the game, there's no distribution costs for them because they don't have to sell through a third party like MS or Sony. All they do is wait for your credit card to clear then mail you the pet/mount, or give you a code to unlock the pet/mount. Considering they are already getting paid a monthly subscription for server maintenence, customer service and generation of new content the celestial steed is about $USD25 too expensive.

DLC does need to be evaluated on a case by case basis, not all developers abuse their power, people have mentioned Valve and Bethesda as a couple of the better developers. Then there's Bioware in the middle with some decent content but a bit pricey. And Blizzard waaay up there ripping people off left and right. Blizzard really surprises me because they are an incredible developer with possibly some of the most polished games ever released, the WoW development team communicates with the WoW community on a daily basis, they had a map editor in Warcraft 3 so the community could make their own content. They always struck me as a company with integrity, who put the satisfaction of their customers above all else. Makes me wonder if it isn't Activision pulling the strings on this blatant rip off.