142 réponses à ce sujet

[Klimy]

As interesting example of digital products:

- Russian piracy is a thing of legends. And russian producers of MMOs fight it buy giving a game for free with free subscription and user can willingly pay for additional items if they want. Such tactic is very effective.



So maybe it is possible to release a half baked game through digital distribution but push out many additional DLC for money. That way it also gets a factor of "its a free game why complain?" and everyone are happy. *I love my immaginary world I live in*.

[GODzilla]

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?

Last week I asked these people for a meeting, to talk about their wishes and opinions, but two got ill and the third one didn't want to come alone...



But seriously: Expansion all the way. And many people feel that way. Plus you cannot deny that DLCs are somewhat dificult to integrate into the main game for some reasons. A few to name:

- voice acting for the main game is over, thus the NPC-DLCs lack real player-to-NPC conversations
- DLCs are in general not so well integrated in the storyline

Obviously you cannot call all the voice actors every time you make a DLC. And obviously you cannot plan the main storyline so that DLCs can be integrated flawlessly later on. But you don't have to.

Because players wish for a comeback of real addons. For an addons voice actors could be invited again. The budget is bigger, it can have it's own storyline and so on. It would be a much more complete and imersive game.

If you'll stick to the DLC thing you'll keep making tiny bits of incomplete, fragmentized and irrelevant software. If that's how Bioware likes to do it, then keep it up.

Modifié par GODzilla_GSPB, 23 avril 2010 - 11:26 .

[RobertM5252]

hex23 wrote...

I don't care. If something is $7 and I want it, I'll buy it. The average person isn't going to sit there and do the math to see if $7 per 1 hour of DLC is greater or less than $50 for a full length game. Why? Because it's only 7 freakin dollars. If you need to think that hard about whether or not to spend $7 that's more a reflection on your economic situation that anything else.

That is exactly the point of the micro-transactions/DLC model. You probably wouldn't pay $81 up front for ME2. But you might do it if you pay $60+7+7+7. Profit for EA/Bioware is the same,  but you don't really think about what you're doing.

Buying the DLC supports this business model. By buying the DLC you tell EA (and Bioware), in the only language they really speak (profit), "Please, do more of this." If, OTOH, they continue to produce DLC of this value and their sales aren't meeting up with their goals, it tells them that the playerbase isn't happy with this model and that they should try something else.

But the micro-payments model exists for a reason; most gamers are more like you than me.

[StowyMcStowstow]

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.

What Blizzard is doing isn't crap. The vanity pets are exactly that, for vanity reasons. You don't need them to get the full enjoyment out of the game, they just look cool. Bioware's DLC, on the other hand, adds a whole lot to the game and if you don't get it you are missing out on a new character.

[StowyMcStowstow]

RobertM5252 wrote...

hex23 wrote...

I don't care. If something is $7 and I want it, I'll buy it. The average person isn't going to sit there and do the math to see if $7 per 1 hour of DLC is greater or less than $50 for a full length game. Why? Because it's only 7 freakin dollars. If you need to think that hard about whether or not to spend $7 that's more a reflection on your economic situation that anything else.

That is exactly the point of the micro-transactions/DLC model. You probably wouldn't pay $81 up front for ME2. But you might do it if you pay $60+7+7+7. Profit for EA/Bioware is the same,  but you don't really think about what you're doing.

Buying the DLC supports this business model. By buying the DLC you tell EA (and Bioware), in the only language they really speak (profit), "Please, do more of this." If, OTOH, they continue to produce DLC of this value and their sales aren't meeting up with their goals, it tells them that the playerbase isn't happy with this model and that they should try something else.

But the micro-payments model exists for a reason; most gamers are more like you than me.

This. Most people don't want to do a risk/reward test to decide if something is worth their money, if they enjoy it they'll want it. Eventually this may lead to developers creating sub-par DLC and releasing it to the public for a high price, because of idiots who want it now and can't be bothered to wait for quality DLC.

[Darth Drago]

StowyMcStowstow wrote...

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.

What Blizzard is doing isn't crap. The vanity pets are exactly that, for vanity reasons. You don't need them to get the full enjoyment out of the game, they just look cool. Bioware's DLC, on the other hand, adds a whole lot to the game and if you don't get it you are missing out on a new character.

-Um yea, it is crap what they are doing. Regardless if the item is just a vanity “you don’t need it for the game” item or not it still over priced for what you get.

BioWare’s Alternate Appearance Pack is nothing but vanity outfits. Each of the armor or weapon downloads is nothing but vanity items. Zaeed, Kasumi and Shale (Dragon Age) are vanity characters. None of those BioWare downloads are required to play the games they are for they are vanity items. In almost all cases downloads are just vanity items. You don’t need them to complete the game they are released for.

[Mercfh]

trust me. 7 bucks is way better than WoW's 25$ horse bullcrap

[Chala]

sometimes I wonder why some people compares two things without any relation, with Valve the dlc for pc is free because they own steam, so they don't need to charge for their content. Otherwise Bioware doesn't have that kind of system, also you are complaining like if their dlc were too expensive, have you ever see the asssassin's creed 2 dlc? or the resident evil's "new content"? those b@5t@rds really tried to steal us.

[mybudgee]

As long as the original software is *truly* worth the price, if it's $60 or less. When you buy a game and your "spidey-sense" begins to tingle, take notice. This may be an attempt to milk you of more of your cash. But if the story is well-written, and the DLC is really extra, a bonus addition, than what is there to cry about....?

[mybudgee]

I think this is a very clear case of; What will we, as consumers of this product, allow the purveyor to get away with?? Will we puy the control in their hands, or take it? Because, of course, we ultimately have the control. Do some research and there are many examples of this. We must stand up for ourselves and our fellow gamers, we must set some standard, a line in the sand. If any manufactuerer crosses it, we have no choice but to boycott them. The economy is too f*cked up to allow this because of laziness.

[Destructo-Bot]

Bioware needs to keep EA's C-level exec's salaries paid somehow. Compensation of millions of dollars per year plus all the bureaucracy below them chugs money down like water. When you've got so much management that even AAA game releases can't keep them paid you've got a problem.

EA reported a net loss of more than $1 billion for fiscal 2009, though much of this was due to special items. On an adjusted basis, the year's loss was 30 cents per share. Revenue, meanwhile, climbed 15 percent to $4.21 billion.

John Riccitiello, the chief executive of Electronic Arts Inc., saw the value of his compensation package decline 36 percent in fiscal 2009 - to $11.1 million. Riccitiello received a base salary of $793,749 in the fiscal year that ended in March. This was a roughly 6 percent increase from his fiscal 2008 salary

Revenue of ~4.25 billion dollars yet a net loss of more than 1 billion. No wonder they want DLC so badly.

[Brako Shepard]

If devs would stick to it, I would love DLC each month for my games. Especially titles like Mass Effect and Fallout where the story can split off from the main plot now and then.

[billywaffles]

slimgrin 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?

No. Their opinions don't count as much as mine because with their poor brains addled with Ritalin and alcohol, they can't stay coherant long enough to finish an expansion pack, let alone a game that spans more than 20 hrs. You don't want Bioware contributing to a well known societal problem do you?

Seriously. I'm glad you commented Stan. But be honest - DLC is an easier and cheaper way to cash in. And there are MANY of us who want more substantial gameplay, not our Mc-dlc with fries and a coke.

QFT

This is the reason I won't buy Kasumi dlc. I don't care she is a great character or the SMG is incredible. It is just that I don't support what these kind of little dlcs represent.

Just imagine Throne of Bhaal divided in 15 DLCs (if BGII had been released nowadays), that would have been a total disaster.

[Iakus]

This is the reason I won't buy Kasumi dlc. I don't care she is a great character or the SMG is incredible. It is just that I don't support what these kind of little dlcs represent.

Just imagine Throne of Bhaal divided in 15 DLCs (if BGII had been released nowadays), that would have been a total disaster.

Heck, at $7 a piece, it would have cost more than the entire game, for a fraction of the content,

But hey, you'd get Sarevok as a companion

Modifié par iakus, 26 avril 2010 - 01:05 .

[Homey C-Dawg]

I don't care for micro-purchase video game content. Some people do, and I'm not going to discount their opinions, but speaking for myself, I'll take a well crafted expansion for a few extra bucks over inexpensive bits and pieces any day.