78 réponses à ce sujet

[Rhys Cordelle]

Speaking of the butterfly sword, do you know what the "unlucky" ability does? Cause if it's not a big disadvantage, I would so use that sword.

[saxford]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
No offense, but maybe you should not be buying video games.

I can buy it, if there are have localizing price as the main game.

I know that Bioware not a charity, I just want localize pricing in my country.

if there are no localize DLC price, than DLC is not for the fan of the gamer in undeveloping country (like me).

[Oldenglishcdr]

simonsteele wrote...

Bioware seems to kind of suck. I never was into the whole Baldur's Gate thing when they were big, recently tried them and was pretty underwhelmed. All the promised humor and deep character interaction seemed pretty superficial to me. Planescape which I also recently played was much better. And though I love Mass Effect 2, I'm struggling to see much in the quality RPG department. How they gained a reputation as a great RPG company is baffling. Bethesda is far better just with Morrowind alone. Of course it does have Fallout 3 and Oblivion dragging it down now too. Everything is about how to suck extra money out of gamers. Games are 60 bucks now. That is a ridiculous amount to pay, and I love gaming so I do it. Then I find incomplete games with downloadable content offered the DAY OF RELEASE!

It's only going to get worse. People have bad reactions to this because we're looking ahead at how this is going to work. Is it unfair now? Not really, just greedy I guess. But it'll get completely out of control in the near future. Especially obvious by how these companies are getting pissed they can't gain profit off a copy of a game they already sold.

Edit: I just think of how the company that made the Witcher did it. They released their game and then found huge ways to improve it. So what did they do? They offered a gigantic downloadable patch, bigger than most of Dragon Ages little DLCs combined, and they offered it for free if you already bought the game. That is a company that has earned my loyalty. They want to make great games for us, not just cash.

It's too bad, I see so much good in games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect. It's too bad the people behind it seem to be a bunch of jerks.

If you think 60 Bucks is a lot for DAO spare a thought for folk such as myself in the UK, as it costs £31.99 just for the Awakenings expansion dlc, and I only paid £15.00 for the main game itself. How can I justifay buying an expansion at that price - I can't and will wait for a price drop hopefully.

DAO is my first Bioware game also and although I respect your opinion, I do feel you are being a little harsh on Bioware. You have to remember games are subjective just like music I guess, you either like some games or you don't, same with music. Bioware is in business to make money the same as most companies, while they would love to please every one, that's obviously not going to happen I guess, but we all have the power to make or break any game company by not supporting them - for whatever reason.

[searanox]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

To take the cynical route: or maybe The Stone Prisoner was already going to be in the game, then removed and retroactively turned into DLC as part of EA's anti-used game campaign.  Same goes for Zaeed and other Cerberus Network content in Mass Effect 2.

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.

[WhyIsThisNecessary]

If you think 60 Bucks is a lot for DAO spare a thought for folk such as myself in the UK, as it costs £31.99 just for the Awakenings expansion dlc, and I only paid £15.00 for the main game itself. How can I justifay buying an expansion at that price - I can't and will wait for a price drop hopefully.

Use Amazon.

[saxford]

searanox wrote...
To take the cynical route: or maybe The Stone Prisoner was already going to be in the game, then removed and retroactively turned into DLC as part of EA's anti-used game campaign.  Same goes for Zaeed and other Cerberus Network content in Mass Effect 2.

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.

I have been said.

In my country it's not 1-2% of original game price.

[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 .

[Necrochain]

If you bought the game and you enjoyed it. I think shelling out $20 for a bunch of DLC is quite worth the price. I purchased both DA:O and DA:A at launch. No hesitation. DLC was slower since I was still in the process of my characters. I can't see why extra content developers create for us should be free for consumers =S. Its not like its their living or anything right?

[Abyss Vixen]

Bioware is a company. It costs money to develope content and the idea is to give you new experiances within a game you enjoy, they are built to not be a must have however some of them give a very nice advantage /cough starfang /cough maric sword...



Awesome weapons I personaly don't mind forking out a few extra pounds every couple of months as they give me a reason to do another run through. I didnt buy the darkspawn chronicals yet simply because thats not the side I am intrested in, did I QQ? Nope its optional lol.



Remember Bioware needs funding to make the next game, dragon age is very cheap in comparison to many other games that have come out and its actually a very narrow market to aim for so they need to do what is needed to keep themselves profitable.

[simonsteele]

[quote]Oldenglishcdr wrote...


[/quote]

If you think 60 Bucks is a lot for DAO spare a thought for folk such as myself in the UK, as it costs £31.99 just for the Awakenings expansion dlc, and I only paid £15.00 for the main game itself. How can I justifay buying an expansion at that price - I can't and will wait for a price drop hopefully.

DAO is my first Bioware game also and although I respect your opinion, I do feel you are being a little harsh on Bioware. You have to remember games are subjective just like music I guess, you either like some games or you don't, same with music. Bioware is in business to make money the same as most companies, while they would love to please every one, that's obviously not going to happen I guess, but we all have the power to make or break any game company by not supporting them - for whatever reason.
[/quote]

Fair enough. To say the games aren't that great is my opinion is valid. I'm not sure what it is that torques me off about their games and attitude so much.

[simonsteele]

Man, David Gaider sums up my aversion to these games perfectly!

[searanox]

David Gaider wrote...

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. 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 say they're taking a customer standpoint on the issue when clearly they're taking a fan standpoint is a bit confusing.

First off, thank you for your quick and thorough reply.  I'd also like to say that I don't view the BioWare staff as heartless automatons - in fact, as someone who wants to pursue a career in game development, I am generally pretty knowledgeable about the constant conflicts developers have between what they want to do, what they're allowed to do, and what they're capable of doing (at least as far as I can be without first-hand experience).

I absolutely understand the massive increase in development costs over the last several years.  It's not a matter of "games cost twice as much", but rather a matter of games being exponentially more expensive with nearly every new technological leap, to the point where human labour and budgets have an impact on how games are designed and built (which is why we're seeing a shift towards multiplayer, etc.).

There's nothing wrong with DLC that is developed concurrently with a game.  That's as expected, considering the way in which development teams are assembled and then broken up based on the needs of development - it makes much more sense to develop add-ons with a large team than it does with a tiny one.  However, there is a distinct difference between developing something as DLC, and developing it as something that is supposed to be in the retail release, then purposely removing it from the game.  The most blatant examples of this lately have been Resident Evil 5 and BioShock 2, both of which shipped with either extra game modes or maps that were included on the game disc, but had to be unlocked via DLC.  Whether or not it's "immoral" to do this aside, it's clear that players do not like the feeling of being cheated by developers.

What it likely comes down to is transparency - saying, "yes, this content costs extra money, and it's optional".  When I buy Windows 7 Home Premium, I know that it comes with all the Ultimate features on disc, but I understand that I'm, effectively, receiving fewer features in exchange for a lower retail price.  As you suggested, the same would work just fine for games, I think, and could even lead to more versatile and interesting options for retail pricing.  Imagine a game where, in addition to the full $50 version, you can buy the single-player mode for $25, and then the multiplayer separately for another $25.  This makes a lot of business sense since it makes content more accessible to users (lower price), while also giving users a greater sense of choice.

The problem, predictably, is simply that developers (or, perhaps more accurately, publishers) don't have to do this; why charge $25 when you can force the user to pay $50 or $60?  The fear is that the increased sales won't make up for the lower price points, but the success of cheaper, smaller, highly-replayable games like Killing Floor, Lead and Gold, Mount & Blade, etc. suggests that you can stand to make a lot of money by compartmentalising feature sets.

As far as the economics of game content go, I admit that it's absolutely a subjective issue, and often varies game to game.  There are plenty of games I've only bought once they've hit a lower price, and it has less to do with what the game objectively offers, and more to do with my expectations of the enjoyment I'll get out of it.  And, of course, the amount of content-per-dollar depends quite a bit on genre; role-playing games are expected to be lengthy, engrossing affairs, but people don't expect a fighting game to provide them with the same amount (or type) of gameplay.    However, "what the market will tolerate?" isn't the best question to ask, since it instantly opens the door to ways of exploiting the consumer.  I posit that a better question to ask is "what value are we able to offer our customers at varying price points, given the costs of development and the expectations of those customers?"

The limitations of DLC mean that the same level of quality, with respect to those aspects of the game, simply can't be delivered.  As such, users are going to be let down.  There are two ways to solve this problem.  The first is to create DLC that fits better into the game both structurally and thematically (perhaps a "dungeon pack", an "items and monsters pack", a "quests pack", all of which snap seamlessly into the original game).  The second is to, from the start, create a game whose design invites the smaller, bite-sized style of the DLC BioWare seems keen on providing.  To bring it back to Dragon Age, I think the biggest problem that the DLC has posed is that it has been attached to a game which was sold as being expansive, deep, and epic, with complex and interesting characters, environments and situations. Ultimately, it may simply be the case that Dragon Age was the wrong type of game to enhance via DLC, and there’s nothing wrong with that, especially when larger expansions like Awakening provide far more value and enjoyment than small add-ons ever could.

Modifié par searanox, 11 juin 2010 - 03:36 .

[Bryy_Miller]

simonsteele wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...



No offense, but maybe you should not be buying video games.

Not your place to make a judgment about what that person does with their disposable income. Ever since my son got cancer I've found every single freakin' penny counts.

I have absolutely no idea how you think these two things are in any way related. One is a luxury buy. The other is your kid dying of cancer.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 12 juin 2010 - 09:26 .

[ToJKa1]

Iliumdawson wrote...

considering each piece of DLC is only about $5
I would say there really is not a lot to complain about.

10 x 5 = 50, which is new a game's price. I however doubt that ten DLCs have as much content as an average new game.

Seeing how much DLC is published nowadays, i'll have to start buying games used to keep the costs down

[Elanareon]

I say, forget making DLC's, the toolset is enough for keeping the game interesting. Bioware DLC's were mediocre at best. No offense but look at "darkspawn chronicles", let's you play a darkspawn, I played something like that user-made before it was even announced!



Maybe they should focus on the overall gameplay experience of the game. If it wasn't for the story and cartoon acting the game would've sucked. And please don't make the argument of different teams blah blah. It would still be better if they focused on one thing instead of dividing resources and making mediocre stuffs.

[simonsteele]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

simonsteele wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...



No offense, but maybe you should not be buying video games.

Not your place to make a judgment about what that person does with their disposable income. Ever since my son got cancer I've found every single freakin' penny counts.

I have absolutely no idea how you think these two things are in any way related. One is a luxury buy. The other is your kid dying of cancer.

First, you retard, my kid is not dying. Second, every penny counts. If you paying attention to the conversation, which clearly you weren't, people were discussing how we could complain about five dollars. I presented my reason as to why five dollars means something.

[Hulk Hsieh]

Elanareon wrote...

I say, forget making DLC's, the toolset is enough for keeping the game interesting. Bioware DLC's were mediocre at best. No offense but look at "darkspawn chronicles", let's you play a darkspawn, I played something like that user-made before it was even announced!

Well, I kind of agree that DA:O DLCs are medicore, but the Kasumi DLC of ME2, while short, is actually pretty decent. And I think I have reason to expect the Overlord DLC to be even better.

I don't really think it is fair to judge DLC based on Dragon Age only.

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 12 juin 2010 - 04:50 .

[AlanC9]

simonsteele wrote...

First, you retard, my kid is not dying. Second, every penny counts. If you paying attention to the conversation, which clearly you weren't, people were discussing how we could complain about five dollars. I presented my reason as to why five dollars means something.

Fair enough, but that's just true for you and people like you. $5 is beneath the threshold of analysis for most people with jobs. Hence Starbucks, selling a slightly better version of coffee and doughnuts for four times the price.

If you've got enough money, this is rational. It's not worth the time and trouble to worry about all your $5 purchases.

[Bryy_Miller]

simonsteele wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

simonsteele wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...



No offense, but maybe you should not be buying video games.

Not your place to make a judgment about what that person does with their disposable income. Ever since my son got cancer I've found every single freakin' penny counts.

I have absolutely no idea how you think these two things are in any way related. One is a luxury buy. The other is your kid dying of cancer.

First, you retard, my kid is not dying. Second, every penny counts. If you paying attention to the conversation, which clearly you weren't, people were discussing how we could complain about five dollars. I presented my reason as to why five dollars means something.

If you don't want to get mad that people are bringing up personal stuff on the internet, don't bring it up yourself. And I was paying attention to the conversation, I was merely saying that the guy may want to save his money for something else if wages are so low. You, my friend, are the one being hostile and quite troll-ish.

[simonsteele]

AlanC9 wrote...

simonsteele wrote...

First, you retard, my kid is not dying. Second, every penny counts. If you paying attention to the conversation, which clearly you weren't, people were discussing how we could complain about five dollars. I presented my reason as to why five dollars means something.

Fair enough, but that's just true for you and people like you. $5 is beneath the threshold of analysis for most people with jobs. Hence Starbucks, selling a slightly better version of coffee and doughnuts for four times the price.

If you've got enough money, this is rational. It's not worth the time and trouble to worry about all your $5 purchases.

Yeah I can see that, I suppose. It's not that I hate
Dragon Age either, it's just that this DLC movement has me worried
about how things are gonna go in the future. Upthread we have the guy
involved with the game saying he'd like to see you just be able to buy
parts of the game or something--think of how much it'd cost to finish a
game like DA.


And to Bryy--where did I say I was upset someone brought my personal problem up? It's just your inability to read and decipher anything anyone has written in a logical manner that offends me. Go read a book.

[Lyna357]

A workman is certainly worthy of their wages, so of course Bioware should make money for their work. Whether or not the DLC is worth paying for is up to the buyer. I personally purchased everything so far, with the exception of Darkspawn Chronicles because I didn't feel it was worth it to me.

Let's say hypothetically, they sell a million downloads at $5 each. I could see why they do this for quick capital and if people are willing to pay, why not?

[Bryy_Miller]

simonsteele wrote...


And to Bryy--where did I say I was upset someone brought my personal problem up?

Well, you did call me retarded.

[Tinxa]

Where I live 5$ is about the price of 2 cups of coffee in a cafe which I think is reasonable and not very expensive for a short DLC you can replay over and over. When I first saw the prices I thought they were very inexpensive.

All the DLC have descriptions, when I read what RtO offered I knew immidiately that it had a few new swords, which I don't care about, and that you'll be fighting more darkspawn on the Ostagar map. I wasn't interested in that, so I didn't buy it. I will probably buy Warden's keep because most people seem to like it and it looks interesting.

The DLC are optional and not required to enjoy DA so I don't see the problem. Why should Bioware provide limitless free add-ons for the game? No company I ever heard of gave stuff away for free.

[Arrtis]

Tinxa wrote...

Where I live 5$ is about the price of 2 cups of coffee in a cafe which I think is reasonable and not very expensive for a short DLC you can replay over and over. When I first saw the prices I thought they were very inexpensive.
All the DLC have descriptions, when I read what RtO offered I knew immidiately that it had a few new swords, which I don't care about, and that you'll be fighting more darkspawn on the Ostagar map. I wasn't interested in that, so I didn't buy it. I will probably buy Warden's keep because most people seem to like it and it looks interesting.
The DLC are optional and not required to enjoy DA so I don't see the problem. Why should Bioware provide limitless free add-ons for the game? No company I ever heard of gave stuff away for free.

I personally wish when i read on thier ME2 site that all cerberus network DLC would be free that it meant all DLC....oh well.
I have enjoyed the games they have made without buying any DLC.
If you do not like the game and it costs too much do not pay for it.
They have to make SOME profit you know.
Sure they can make barley a penny profit just to keep everything running as they are but that wouldn't be very smart.