94 réponses à ce sujet

[RobertM5252]

"Value" is the number one concept almost being discussed here. How much do I get for what I'm paying?

Personally, I have a lot more respect for companies that understand how value is important. I have less for ones that try to nickle-and-dime me to death.

"They're all in business to make money" is the generic excuse for any sort of profit motivation. Bioware's whole raison d'etre is not to make money. Game development is, apparently, a field where people work long hours for decent but not amazing pay. If profit were their sole motivation, they'd be working in other fields. Their first goal is to make games. Their second is to make a living doing it. (Presumably. There could be someone working for Bioware that mistakenly thought game development was an awesome way to get rich easy.)

Now EA, OTOH, is not a developer. They're just a publisher. Profit is a far greater motivation for them than it is for Bioware. As such, they put far greater value in that which makes money than, say, what makes a good game. If crappy, easily-made games made as much money as good ones, it'd be all they published.

EA's motive, then, is to find the least amount of content they can publish for the most amount of money. The microtransactions model delivers this. It also incentivizes them putting pressure on developers (like Bioware) to make their games to include the minimum of content out-of-the-box so that they can sell everything else they develop later under the more profitable DLC business model.

Possible case in point: Bioware is making Mass Effect 2. EA says, "Get this to market sooner." Bioware says, "We're not done yet." EA asks, "What else do you have left to finish?" Bioware says, "We've got two characters and some weapons we've got left to finish." EA says, "That's fine, we don't care. We can sell at least one of those characters later. Let's just publish this now."

Zaeed and Kasumi could have been as fleshed out as the rest of the ME2 characters. They could have come with the game, too. But that would've taken more time. So with Zaeed (and the Arc Projector), they simply released the game and kept working on it to release later for free (at least if you got the Cerberus Network code, anyway). But with Kasumi, it was a means to make money to hold her back and release her later.

We're not entitled to Kasumi. Hell, we're not entitled to Miranda, Jack, Jacob, Garrus, etc. But I value more the idea of ME2 having them in it rather than deliberately leaving them out in order to get more money from me later. I respect it more.

And that, IMO, is the issue.

[RobertM5252]

Captain Iglo wrote...

All money earned goes straight to EA...Bioware are simply employees of EA.

EA is a gigantic shareholder company in a highly competitive market...and their biggest competitor Activison makes MILLIONS! with simple DLC....songs for guitar hero and co, maps for the cod's, and I'm sure blizzard will have to do the same with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, if Activision says so, what they will.
However...to compete with Activison and to "feed" the shareholders they need to put out regularly DLC for their Tripple A titles. At  the moment EA is crumbling...they have nothing but Mass Effect and Battlefield....they need sales and money! no matter how!

Wow, I had no idea how bad it was, EA vs. Activision:

Stock price comparison for EA and Activision-Blizzard for the last 3 years

EA's market capitalization (shares times price-per-share) right now is US$5.4 billion compared to Activision-Blizzard's US$12.9 billion. Activision Blizzard's first quarter (Mar '10) net profit margin: 29.13%, Electronic Arts: 3.06%. Quite a difference!  And a surprising one to me, given that I haven't bought a (non-Blizzard) Activision product in ages. (That I know of, anyway.) Seems like everything I buy is either EA or some smaller publisher.

Activision's making a killing.

[Dean_the_Young]

RobertM5252 wrote...

"Value" is the number one concept almost being discussed here. How much do I get for what I'm paying?

Since you are paying, the answer is you value it enough. If you didn't, you wouldn't pay for it. Whether you complain or not is irrelevant to whether you considered it worth buying it.

Personally, I have a lot more respect for companies that understand how value is important. I have less for ones that try to nickle-and-dime me to death.

...

"They're all in business to make money" is the generic excuse for any sort of profit motivation. Bioware's whole raison d'etre is not to make money. Game development is, apparently, a field where people work long hours for decent but not amazing pay. If profit were their sole motivation, they'd be working in other fields. Their first goal is to make games. Their second is to make a living doing it. (Presumably. There could be someone working for Bioware that mistakenly thought game development was an awesome way to get rich easy.)

You have it switched around: the first goal of people is to make a living. The second is to make a living doing something they like. People who do not make a living can not do things they like in the first place.

As a corporation, Bioware's raison d'etre is making money selling games. It's what it was made to do. Yes, there are other professions and fields in which more money is made. But those are opportunities in which more money is being made by other companies. The reason lower-value producers exist in any market is because a sold low-profit product is always more profitable than not-selling a high-competition high-profit product.

We're not entitled to Kasumi. Hell, we're not entitled to Miranda, Jack, Jacob, Garrus, etc. But I value more the idea of ME2 having them in it rather than deliberately leaving them out in order to get more money from me later. I respect it more.

And that, IMO, is the issue.

Whether you respect the **** you pay for or not, you're still paying for a ****. You're the person at wrong for making their life style desirable for them. They are not at fault that you seek them out about it.

[RobertM5252]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Since you are paying, the answer is you value it enough. If you didn't, you wouldn't pay for it. Whether you complain or not is irrelevant to whether you considered it
worth buying it.

That's a nice black-and-white way of looking at things. At the most simplistic level, yes, everything can be reduced to a "you bought it"/"you didn't" way of looking at it. And even after something has been purchased, how well it was enjoyed can affect whether or not someone will make a subsequent purchase, and thus it is worthwhile for a seller to know what their buyers are feeling about their purchases after the fact.

Companies that focus on simply acquiring your money once are doomed to never acquire it again. That short-sighted thinking may drive the modern world economy, but that doesn't make a good way of doing things.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You have it switched around: the first goal of people is to make a living. The second is to make a living doing something they like. People who do not make a living can not do things they like in the first place.

Granted, but I don't believe game developers are often suffering jobs they hate to make a living.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
As a corporation, Bioware's raison d'etre is making money selling games. It's what it was made to do. Yes, there are other professions and fields in which more money is made. But those are opportunities in which more money is being made by other companies. The reason lower-value producers exist in any market is because a sold low-profit product is always more profitable than not-selling a high-competition high-profit product.

Perhaps viewing it entirely as a product to be sold is part of the problem. I value Bioware's games because of the fact that they're part of the trend in games toward gaming being more than mindless, simple entertainment. Storytelling is one of Bioware's chief values in the games. Compromising that value in the name of greater profitability may be better for them in the short term but discourages people like me (who, granted, are probably in a minority) who valued their products because of it from remaining "loyal customers."

[Jedi0309]

RobertM5252 wrote...

"Value" is the number one concept almost being discussed here. How much do I get for what I'm paying?

Personally, I have a lot more respect for companies that understand how value is important. I have less for ones that try to nickle-and-dime me to death.

"They're all in business to make money" is the generic excuse for any sort of profit motivation. Bioware's whole raison d'etre is not to make money. Game development is, apparently, a field where people work long hours for decent but not amazing pay. If profit were their sole motivation, they'd be working in other fields. Their first goal is to make games. Their second is to make a living doing it. (Presumably. There could be someone working for Bioware that mistakenly thought game development was an awesome way to get rich easy.)

Now EA, OTOH, is not a developer. They're just a publisher. Profit is a far greater motivation for them than it is for Bioware. As such, they put far greater value in that which makes money than, say, what makes a good game. If crappy, easily-made games made as much money as good ones, it'd be all they published.

EA's motive, then, is to find the least amount of content they can publish for the most amount of money. The microtransactions model delivers this. It also incentivizes them putting pressure on developers (like Bioware) to make their games to include the minimum of content out-of-the-box so that they can sell everything else they develop later under the more profitable DLC business model.

Possible case in point: Bioware is making Mass Effect 2. EA says, "Get this to market sooner." Bioware says, "We're not done yet." EA asks, "What else do you have left to finish?" Bioware says, "We've got two characters and some weapons we've got left to finish." EA says, "That's fine, we don't care. We can sell at least one of those characters later. Let's just publish this now."

Zaeed and Kasumi could have been as fleshed out as the rest of the ME2 characters. They could have come with the game, too. But that would've taken more time. So with Zaeed (and the Arc Projector), they simply released the game and kept working on it to release later for free (at least if you got the Cerberus Network code, anyway). But with Kasumi, it was a means to make money to hold her back and release her later.

We're not entitled to Kasumi. Hell, we're not entitled to Miranda, Jack, Jacob, Garrus, etc. But I value more the idea of ME2 having them in it rather than deliberately leaving them out in order to get more money from me later. I respect it more.

And that, IMO, is the issue.

I agree with you in this.  I honestly believe if Bioware had been 100% in control of Mass Effect 2, the game's skinny parts would have been filled out a bit more.  Before anyone jumps on this statement, this is how it usually works:  EA is the publisher (and in this case, the owner), while Bioware is simply the developer (and in this case, EA's employee).  The developer brings an idea to the Publisher, who then provides finacial support to the developer.  Whatever the Publisher says, the Developer is obligated to do.  Even though Bioware can make the game however they want, EA can change anything they want about it and Bioware is obligated to comply.  Failure to do so can result in the Publisher pulling its funding from the developer.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's a rather naive view of why they did things in the past. Companies offered free material not 'for love of programming and gaming', but because freebies kept people interested in the franchise and more likely to stay interested. Companies are and have always been engines of profit. They don't waste money paying programmers for useless things.

The micro-transaction bandwagon is here to stay because it's become an apparently superior business model. It prolongs consumer interest in the product while also increasing the value of the product by making individual parts of it available and affordable. This also has the aspect of pushing them to produce more extra content in the first place that they wouldn't do otherwise. If you can find a better business model, businesses will take it and the micro-transaction model will die. Until then, companies that don't won't be competitive, and won't be able to afford to produce good games in the first place, let alone free DLC.

If you don't want to spend money for expanded equipment, then don't buy the equipment. It's really that simple. Other people who do want it can buy it, and you'll be no worse off for it.

You may have read my post wrong.  I never said Bioware offered FREE content for the love of gaming.  I said Bioware made killer games and content for the love of gaming, not an added paycheck.  The word free was never mentioned in that sentence.  I can't prove to you that Bioware was more motivated by passion than dollar signs, but as a loyal Bioware fan I certainly felt that way.  As I said in a previous post, things may have changed after EA bought them out. 

I believe most people, myself included, won't spend money on something  they don't want.  Nevertheless, I appreciate it that you took the time to remind us of this.

Modifié par Jedi0309, 21 mai 2010 - 07:06 .

[megatron999]

Bioware makes fantastic games I thought the price was worth it I paid £25 on amazon. I will never buy a game from game or anywhere else as they are expensive adn ask for my ID everytime. Which I find annoying as hell.



My key complaint was the system was not fully tested and had loads of graphic errors and other technical faults which should not have existed.



EA is evil there servers suck! I played C&c online and it crashed repeatedly!! I was so angry !!! especially when I finally started to win after months of playing!!!

[NKKKK]

TL;DR

[Dean_the_Young]

RobertM5252 wrote...


That's a nice black-and-white way of looking at things. At the most simplistic level, yes, everything can be reduced to a "you bought it"/"you didn't" way of looking at it. And even after something has been purchased, how well it was enjoyed can affect whether or not someone will make a subsequent purchase, and thus it is worthwhile for a seller to know what their buyers are feeling about their purchases after the fact.

Companies have released plenty of micro-DLC already. That people (including you) keep buying DLC has long since proven the profitability of it. Infact, microfinancing goes far beyond DLC, and has been prevalent and effective for decades. They don't have to have you buy all the DLC they offer, and you don't have to buy all the DLC they offer. People with varying levels of interest can put in varying amounts of money, which is exactly what is the better buisness strategy.

You don't think getting an extra character costume is worth a few bucks? Sure. Someone else does? Why not offer it then?

Companies that focus on simply acquiring your money once are doomed to never acquire it again. That short-sighted thinking may drive the modern world economy, but that doesn't make a good way of doing things.

Ignoring the little crusade against consumerism which has been fought for millenia now with no succes, you really don't have much credibility. So you're really trying to say that you aren't going to buy ME3 because you didn't like paying for the latest appearance pack or DLC mission? 

Right.

Granted, but I don't believe game developers are often suffering jobs they hate to make a living.

Who said they hated what they were doing?

People have to have some sort of job to survive in this world, more or less. They will do what they do. Once that minimum is secured, they start looking for a happy balance of profit (paying the bills) and enjoyment.

Perhaps viewing it entirely as a product to be sold is part of the problem. I value Bioware's games because of the fact that they're part of the trend in games toward gaming being more than mindless, simple entertainment. Storytelling is one of Bioware's chief values in the games. Compromising that value in the name of greater profitability may be better for them in the short term but discourages people like me (who, granted, are probably in a minority) who valued their products because of it from remaining "loyal customers."

Yes, you are in the minority. The largely insiginificant minority which buys the games and then looks back with nostalgia to days that never were before buying the next game anyway, repeating the process again.

DLC is not ruining or invalidating the story of Mass Effect. Cosmetic DLC (appearance packs, for example, or weapons/armor) add bells and whisltles and pretty little streamers to the existing story, which some people like (such as the Arc Projector) and some people are indifferent to. Added missions (like Bring Down the Sky) bring another chapter to the story which, while not integral, are rarely superflous to the overall story. They are much prettier side quests that people love doing.

DLC characters are only as good as they are made to be, but in ME2 it's a hard case to argue that Kasumi or Zaeed aren't just as characterized as the other crew. They may lack a dialogue wheel but they always have something to say, and their in-mission dialogue is more varied than most the cast. Their missions also range from equal to better than most the original game missions.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 21 mai 2010 - 11:41 .

[Il Divo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

DLC characters are only as good as they are made to be, but in ME2 it's a hard case to argue that Kasumi or Zaeed aren't just as characterized as the other crew. They may lack a dialogue wheel but they always have something to say, and their in-mission dialogue is more varied than most the cast. Their missions also range from equal to better than most the original game missions.

I agree with most of your post, especially regarding Kasumi, but Zaeed is pushing it, imo.

His mission was certainly fun, but Zaeed's loyalty mission was far from "better" to most in the original game such as Thane's or Tali's. It was very straight-forward and it pretty much hits you over the head. With most characters you're given a foundation for their loyalty missions, which is not so with Zaeed. I also didn't find his dialogue particularly unique. Once aboard the Normandy, he simply mutters about missions which he has accomplished. The lack of a dialogue wheel however keeps me from becoming interested.

[Privateerkev]

He's free...



Plus I thought the loyalty mission told a lot about him. There was even some character growth in the end if you go paragon...

[megatron999]

how do yu get him to be loyal without killing vido?

[Asheer_Khan]

megatron999 wrote...

how do yu get him to be loyal without killing vido?

High paragon or renegade count.

I always let Vido go and save those workers because i don't like to be cheated and Zaeed need to learn who is here the boss.... and i always end whit loyal Zaeed at the end.

And Vido?... i seriously doubt that he leaves that planet alive... not after last bullet killed chopper pilot.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

ITT we discuss Ludwig von Mises.

[Getorex]

Just because it has been a (bogus) "tradition" in RPGs to have an endless inventory wherein one can literally carry and use an unreasonably infinite number of googaws and crap doesn't mean it should come through in ME. 
I thought there was too much crap to pick up and carry (NO one can carry so much crap even in magic universe) and dispense with or sell in ME1.  I prefer it closer to ME2, though some flexibility would be nice.  In FPS type games like Far Cry, it is reasonably realistic in that your character can use his weapon but when you stumble across another (dropped by a dead opponent or coming across a cache) you can swap it out for something else.  THIS is more realistic. 

So, I'd like to be able to SWAP weapons or even canibalize found weapons (for scopes, designators, silencers, and the like).  I prefer my games to be somewhat correspondent to reality in as many ways as possible - so weapon load outs, carry capacity, damage done by different weapons, etc, should be as reasonable as possible. 
For ME3 it should be a conservative hybrid of ME1 and ME2.  SOME inventory (reasonable and realistic-ish) but not unlimited also ME1 and other RPGs.

scyphozoa wrote...

I do agree that ME2 failed to deliver an adequate amount of armor in the retail box. I am not sure why there is so few armor pieces?

The weapons argument I would say I disagree with. In ME1 you had hundreds of weapons that didn't really feel unique. At best, the classes of guns had their own feel, but within those classes, the guns all functioned the same, and the only reason to upgrade was higher DPS, accuracy or shots fired before overheating.

In ME2, there are only ~20 guns, but within the classes of guns, each weapon still feels unique. By this I mean, even though there are a handful of assault rifles, they each function differently and feel unique.

I won't really address your concern of dlc, as the pricing, value and micro-dlc as a whole is pretty much a point of contention for a lot of people. I do wish ME2 launched with more stock armor options - I cannot understand why it didn't. I will say, I much prefer ME2's 20 unique guns than ME1's 4 gun classes with hundreds of carbon copy guns.

[RobertM5252]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Companies have released plenty of micro-DLC already. That people (including you) keep buying DLC has long since proven the profitability of it. Infact, microfinancing goes far beyond DLC, and has been prevalent and effective for decades. They don't have to have you buy all the DLC they offer, and you don't have to buy all the DLC they offer. People with varying levels of interest can put in varying amounts of money, which is exactly what is the better buisness strategy.

You don't think getting an extra character costume is worth a few bucks? Sure. Someone else does? Why not offer it then?

I'm not doubting the profitability of it. In the short-run, it's perfectly profitable. And if it's done right, it doesn't have to damage long-term profitability, either. Indeed, aesthetic additions and such as DLC aren't, IMO, any sort of real problem. Yes, it'd be nice if they were free. And yes, you'll get some people who feel entitled to them who feel bitter that they weren't given to them who are so soured by the experience that they stop buying games from these developers. But, I agree, they're not in the majority.

However, there is a line somewhere that the micropayments model can cross that does cause less impulsive members of the gaming community to lose interest in a product.

Ignoring the little crusade against consumerism which has been fought for millenia now with no succes, you really don't have much credibility. So you're really trying to say that you aren't going to buy ME3 because you didn't like paying for the latest appearance pack or DLC mission? 

Right.

I didn't say that I was so disgusted by the fact that Bioware isn't giving things away left and right that I'l never buy a thing from them again. I am expressing concern, however, at the trend I fear is growing, of minimizing out-of-the-box content in order sell it later at a higher markup.

Oh, and speaking of credibility, you would do well to avoid the snide little ad hominin digs you seem to love throwing around. <_<

Yes, you are in the minority. The largely insiginificant minority which buys the games and then looks back with nostalgia to days that never were before buying the next game anyway, repeating the process again.

So many assumptions here! How well you know me! <_<

Modifié par RobertM5252, 21 mai 2010 - 09:01 .

[javierabegazo]

Do we even know if there was any space left on the two discs to hold the full data required for Kasumi and Zaeed? I was under the impression that they had filled up the discs as much as they could

[megatron999]

Honestly I do think bioware made a fantastic game in terms of Graphics/storyline and casting each character.



I did feel that they could have had more choices from ME1 affect ME2 characters. for example they could have had altered slightly storylines for the game.

[Privateerkev]

In the old days, a computer company made a game and hoped you liked it so much you would buy the next game. Now, with everyone online, the trick is to get the game to make them money forever. Like WoW. DLC is BW's experiment with this.



I personally don't mind as long we get something for the money. I thought Kasumi's mission was awesome and eagerly await Overlord.

[Dean_the_Young]

RobertM5252 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Companies have released plenty of micro-DLC already. That people (including you) keep buying DLC has long since proven the profitability of it. Infact, microfinancing goes far beyond DLC, and has been prevalent and effective for decades. They don't have to have you buy all the DLC they offer, and you don't have to buy all the DLC they offer. People with varying levels of interest can put in varying amounts of money, which is exactly what is the better buisness strategy.

You don't think getting an extra character costume is worth a few bucks? Sure. Someone else does? Why not offer it then?

I'm not doubting the profitability of it. In the short-run, it's perfectly profitable. And if it's done right, it doesn't have to damage long-term profitability, either. Indeed, aesthetic additions and such as DLC aren't, IMO, any sort of real problem. Yes, it'd be nice if they were free. And yes, you'll get some people who feel entitled to them who feel bitter that they weren't given to them who are so soured by the experience that they stop buying games from these developers. But, I agree, they're not in the majority.

However, there is a line somewhere that the micropayments model can cross that does cause less impulsive members of the gaming community to lose interest in a product.

And yet you have not shown any case of people not playing the game because of DLC. Of quiting the franchise because of DLC. Or not buying anything because of the DLC model. Unless more people don't buy, it's not a flawed model.

Infact, it's hard to tell what your issue with it at all is now, since you've gone and accepted that aesthetic DLC are legitimate and that they needn't be free.

Ignoring the little crusade against consumerism which has been fought for millenia now with no succes, you really don't have much credibility. So you're really trying to say that you aren't going to buy ME3 because you didn't like paying for the latest appearance pack or DLC mission? 

Right.

I didn't say that I was so disgusted by the fact that Bioware isn't giving things away left and right that I'l never buy a thing from them again. I am expressing concern, however, at the trend I fear is growing, of minimizing out-of-the-box content in order sell it later at a higher markup.

Until you stop buying DLC, that's not a concern of Bioware.

Oh, and speaking of credibility, you would do well to avoid the snide little ad hominin digs you seem to love throwing around. <_<

An ad hominin would be if I attacked you by calling you stupid, lazy, moronic, or similar. I am not calling you stupid, lazy, or moronic.

I said you had no credibility that you were being lost due to the business model. Your own response 'I'm not saying I'll never buy another game because of it' illustrates the judgement.

Yes, you are in the minority. The largely insiginificant minority which buys the games and then looks back with nostalgia to days that never were before buying the next game anyway, repeating the process again.

So many assumptions here! How well you know me! <_<

Since you're arguing about micro-payments on terms of 'losing respect' decades after the concept has been put into practice in other forms? Video gaming is late to the scene of extending the experience with extending buy ins.

If I seem exasperated, it's because I've heard much the same argument from D&D buffs and other such RPG-ers from table top buffs to Final Fantasy Fanatics about changes to rulebooks and new stories and what not in almost the exact same terms. 'Respect.' 'Corporate greed.' 'Back in the day-'.

[megatron999]

But you did get value for money a good game and even Free Addons what more could you ask?



Of course they decided to add new content which you have to pay for, nothing wrong with that. In this world you have to pay to get what you want its life.