2 réponses à ce sujet

[saxford]

I have play Mass Effect 1

It has Bring Down the Sky DLC.
It's great and free.

but, In new generation bioware game (DAO, ME2)

Why they are not have free and Good DLC ?

Firewalker is not bad, but does not match BDtS.

[David Gaider]

DAO had the Stone Prisoner available for free to people who bought the game. As to the rest of the DLC, it is not free because we are not a charity. DLC consists of extra products which are available for purchase by those who are looking to add to their DA experience. If it's not worth the money to you, then stick with the game you bought-- there's plenty of value there all on its own.

Modifié par David Gaider, 09 juin 2010 - 06:50 .

[David Gaider]

searanox wrote...
However, I do think it is reasonable to charge for new content.  Where the point of contention arises is exactly how "new" the content actually is.  Many people are against DLC because it appears to them that it consists of features that were removed during development, simply for the purpose of nickle-and-diming customers, and, sadly, this does actually happen quite often.  Moreover, a lot of DLC is sold for what seems to be an inflated price, especially when one compares both the amount and quality of content in a DLC pack to the full game.  In the case of Dragon Age, considering the full game offers a good 40-80 hours of gameplay on an initial play-through, charging 10% of the retail price for about 1-2% of the content is simply not good value.  While this means developers are able to improve profits, especially as development expenses rise, it means that a lot of players get left feeling short-changed.

A couple of things to say about this:

1) Although we haven't done it, I don't really see what the big deal is about DLC consisting of features that were removed from development. So long as the game that you buy is a complete package (ie. you can play it from beginning to end, and it is both enjoyable and worth the money you paid) anything else beyond that is an extra that's available to add to your experience. The fact that a company might have made that content at the same time as the retail package is pretty irrelevant to anyone other than those who feel entitled to every piece of content that was ever made for a product or ever will be made simply because they bought the one game.

Sorry to break this to you, but with the cost of game development being what it is now those days are pretty much done for any sizeable development company. I know this is a sacred cow to anyone who feels that video games should be made just like they were back in days when development houses were small and more hobby-like than business, but the fact that game development is a big business does not automatically render everyone who's trying to make money doing what they love into heartless automatons out only to oppress poor, helpless gamers. I'm sure we'd all love to throw financial considerations out the window and make games like they were a hobby with no other considerations-- and I'm sure that the hardcore fans would be ecstatic and write many heart-rending posts of their sadness when their favorite company goes under... and then move onto the next game. I don't think it should be very surprising that this has limited appeal to those of us who actually work in the industry.

2) I get that you don't want to feel cheated, but the logical conclusion of comparing the length of any DLC produced to the length of the original game and saying that the price should be comparable is that the original game should clearly have been shorter. Is that what you mean? Of course not-- but any content that is released to retail is priced according to what the established price for that type of content is. A full game costs $X, an expansion costs $Y and DLC costs $Z. The cost of DLC is no more related to its length any more than a full game is. The idea is whether or not there enough content for you to enjoy that makes the price worth it for you personally -- and clearly that is something you'll have to decide for yourself, as with anything you buy. In the end, the price is determined by what the market feels something is worth, and if we make the wrong choices I guess we will indeed suffer for it in the end just the same as any other developer before us who has gone out of business-- though that should really go without saying.

And yes, I know. I'm a bad person for talking business sense when I am also a creator. Clearly that makes me a machine. From my perspective, I wouldn't even mind seeing content sold by-the-feature... you just pay for the features of a game that you're most interested in. Maybe that would cause a collective gasp of horror on the internet, I don't know, but personally I don't see much point in adhering to traditional business practices that don't have any place in the modern market just because "that's the way it's always been". I'd like to keep creating, and I'm sure many other game developers feel the same-- the business part of things is something we have to consider, even if you guys don't.

And before anyone has a heart attack, no, I'm not involved in either the pricing or the business practices that EA chooses. I'm just saying I wouldn't see a problem with it, and angry posts from people who claim they're taking a customer standpoint on the issue when clearly they're taking a fan standpoint is a bit confusing.

Modifié par David Gaider, 11 juin 2010 - 03:18 .