186 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Granted, the price swings aren't noticeable, but isn't that just because there's so much noise in the data? Those meals were never free-- you certainly were paying for them, even if you didn't notice.



Of course, not noticing that you're paying for something is almost as good as getting it for free.

[Mad Method]

Alan, stop stating the obvious to seem intelligent. I am fully aware this is TINSTAAFL back to you in 1 step. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to use the word free.



My main point here is that the decoupling of this bundle has led to absurd and aggravating overpricing.

[AlanC9]

So don't pay it. What I took away from that whole business was that airlines never should have been serving food in the first place.

I'm a little confused. How is this relevant to DLC, anyway?

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 juillet 2010 - 06:47 .

[Monstruo696]

AlanC9 wrote...

There have been studies. People will put up with a lot to reduce transaction costs.

Edit: and hey, aren't you the one saying that content should be bundled? Last time I checked you were against the DLC concept.

I was only stating that you can't pick your channels.  Stop twisting my words and applying them to another subject.

[Mad Method]

Alan, since we have established that there is no discernible price difference between a flight bundled with food I will be eating and a flight charging extra for food I won't be buying, can we tell which one is the superior option?

This is comparable to DLC in that traditionally game publishers released bonus content for their games for free after release while now they are charging money for it. Think of the game as the flight and the DLC as the food. Bioware is running headlong into the same issues with DAO DLC that airlines have when they charge for food.

Modifié par Mad Method, 21 juillet 2010 - 06:55 .

[London]

I do justify it that way. I could pay $11 just to see a 1.5 hour movie. Even if I only get 1-2 hours out of a $7 DLC, it was worth it.

I'm not sure I see the point.  Dragon Age is a hobby - I can choose not to buy DLC just like other people can choose not to buy another issue of a comic book, or another pack of baseball cards, another coin...whatever.  I don't feel ripped off.  It's not something I'm coerced to buy, I choose to for enjoyment.

Modifié par SebastianDA, 21 juillet 2010 - 06:57 .

[Mad Method]

So the entertainment you derive from a $7 DLC is more or less the same as you get from an $11 movie? (Personally I pay $1 to rent that same movie, but your own TV isn't quite the same as a theater.)

Well, maybe my standards for quality are different from yours. I am very picky about the movies I watch and the novels I read. Agree to disagree, then?

Modifié par Mad Method, 21 juillet 2010 - 07:11 .

[bzombo]

L33TDAWG wrote...

     If you preordered DAO you got the Stone Prisoner, Blood Dragon Armour, Wolf Charm, and that other thats name eludes me at this time. Though if you didn't preorder it, you didn't get these things and would have to buy them. Well the Stone Prisoner didn't really give you a fair price for how little it added to the story, it just gave you insight to the dwarven past. Return to Ostagar wasn't that great either, you weren't really left pondering what happened at the battle because the game made it pretty clear when the tower you were at was attacked and you woke up recieving news about how crappy the battle turned out.

     Then BioWare, you pulled a fast one and put a guy in our camp who talks to us about his problem and asks you for help, but you had to download the quest to do it. I am overall wondering if that's what we are left to expect in DA2, 60 dollars for a game that'll have 100 dollars in DLC to continue on the story or just to get a quest. Because it is quite bull **** when you have to pay 60 dollars for a game then turn around and pay 15 - 20 dollars for one or two missions and new armour which you won't need since all of them were useless as a mage or rogue (aside from the one weapon you got in Warden's Keep).

     I got the DLCs and they were pretty good, but didn't satisfy as you'd expect them to and if anything were just not that great and should have just been in the game, honestly I see it as this inivatble thing companies will do to keep sucking money out of you when some of these things could just be included in the game, but when you put the guy in our camp who you think you will be getting a mission from and it ends up being a promotion for a DLC pretty much, you feel kinda ripped off. Like, what was this suppose to be in the game? I played Assassin's Creed 2 and felt gyped about having to pay to keep the game going and find out what happens. I liked that DA didn't do that, but having to pay extra for a game you payed full price for expecting the FULL game is just BS.

     It makes me miss the old days of buying game for the nintendo 64 or super nintendo where I just got the full game that kept my interest for hours. This DLC thing that's happening is just a way of showing you that companies are willing to make a cheap crap game that you beat in 2 days just so you will want to pay for more of it when they could have added it into the game in the first place. Some DLCs are great, but there is a lot that is useless and just there to suck your money away. I am hoping DA2 doesn't do this because of the way this generation of games is heading, it'd be a good idea just to stick a foot up your butt rather than pay 120 dollars for one game without realizing what you are doing.

don't like, don't buy. you are not forced to. the game is a full game. most dlc would not exist in the original game were it not for the dlc format. it's more to put in your game. is it extra money they get out of you? sure it is, but it's optional. shale was cut and only added back as dlc due to the delay to port to console. if not for dlc, shale does not ever happen. shale is more than a quest. you have a quest to get her, a full time companion you can have the whole game, and a second quest to learn more about her. shale is the best bang for the buck out of all dlc.

Modifié par bzombo, 21 juillet 2010 - 07:07 .

[Monstruo696]

"Don't like, Don't buy" seems to be the only retort around here you guys can use.

[Itkovian]

Monstruo696 wrote...

Itkovian wrote...

I think people need to calm down a little about DLC.

Additional content for a game is nothing new. Expansions have existed forever. The difference is that digital distribution has made the creation of smaller additional content that does not need to be printed, packaged, and shipped.

This does _not_ imply that game designers and publishers are intentionally making incomplete games or removing already-made content from the game just so they can sell it as DLC.

It's a nice conspiracy theory, but quite frankly Bioware proves that it is certainly not why DLC exists. The Mass Effect games and DAO are very clearly complete games with tremendous content in the original package.

It's additional content, and as such must be purchased. It does not somehow make the original game incomplete (much like Rocky II didn't make Rocky I incomplete *grin*).

Itkovian

That's being naive.

1.  Instead of working on a new game, why are they adding bits and pieces to the old one with skewed gameplay:price ratios?  Take RTO for example, $5 for 1-1.5 hours of gameplay and some voicework.  The game itself was around 50 hours (if you did not skip conversations and did ABSOLUTELY everything), that's a 1:1 ratio compared to RTO's 1:5 ratio.  

2.  You can't compare movies to games, and even if you could, the analogy itself is stupid.  Rocky II is a whole movie, not 5 minutes extra of Rock I. (TL;DR Baldurs Gate is to Baldurs Gate II what Rocky is to Rocky II)

3.  It's not a conspiracy, it's simple marketing.  Do the whole world a favor and take a marketing/economy class in your local community college.

How is it naive? The basic point I am making is that DLC does not imply that the main game is incomplete. DLC is optional additional content.

But to deal with your points:

1. Pricing is irrelevant. It defines whether or not the DLC is worth the money spent. If it isn't, then do not buy it. It does not make the original game incomplete. All it means is that the optional additional content is priced higher than the original one.

2. The analogy is actually even more appropriate when you use a larger content (a whole movie) when compared to a minor addition.

Or, if you prefer, if an entire sequel does not make the original movie incomplete, then why would DLC make an original game incomplete? The answer is, of course, that it does not.

3. The very idea that game companies are necessarily using DLC as a way to fleece its customers by releasing incomplete games does in fact border on a conspiracy theory (specifically, it leverages the same level of paranoia that most conspiracy theories do). Nor does marketing mean presenting the product in such a way as to fleece the customer base at every turn (in actuality that is rather poort marketing, since generating customer outrage inherently generates negative outcry, which is in turn bad for marketing).

DLC CAN indeed be used in such a way, but the conclusion that this is all DLC is used for is fallacious. It can simply be additional content developed after the game was completed, and indeed evidence suggest that was the case for Dragon Age. Certainly, no one can make the argument that DAO was incomplete on release, and everyone would have been quite satisfied with it even if no DLC had been released (as it was one of the largest current generation games released).

Now, if the problem is pricing, then that is altogether a different matter. But DLC does not imply games are released incomplete.

Thank you.

Itkovian

[Monstruo696]

Itkovian wrote...
Now, if the problem is pricing

The problem is pricing.

Actually, to add to that, ME2 was released incomplete.  You can notice this from a few pieces of the Equalizer pack obviously match some of the pieces from the original game.

Modifié par Monstruo696, 21 juillet 2010 - 07:34 .

[Mad Method]

Oh by the way, itkovan:

The very idea that game companies are necessarily using DLC as a way to fleece its customers by releasing incomplete games does in fact border on a conspiracy theory

Shale was originally part of DAO and Bioware knew that people want a camp storage chest since beta. It's curious that there are price tags affixed to both of them.

[Monstruo696]

Mad Method wrote...

Oh by the way, itkovan:

The very idea that game companies are necessarily using DLC as a way to fleece its customers by releasing incomplete games does in fact border on a conspiracy theory

Shale was originally part of DAO and Bioware knew that people want a camp storage chest since beta. It's curious that there are price tags affixed to both of them.

Thank god for the modding community.

I think it's the only reason why Oblivion and Fallout 3 are still alive and didn't flop hard and nastily like they should have.  Not that I'm complaining, I got my kicks out of what I paid for, but it was thanks to other people, not Bethesda.

[Itkovian]

Mad Method wrote...

Oh by the way, itkovan:

The very idea that game companies are necessarily using DLC as a way to fleece its customers by releasing incomplete games does in fact border on a conspiracy theory

Shale was originally part of DAO and Bioware knew that people want a camp storage chest since beta. It's curious that there are price tags affixed to both of them.

Actually, as I recall The Stone Prisoner was not ready when the game was certified for PC/Console release, and so it was easier to release it as free DLC. It was instead used as incentive to cut down on used game sales. But in any case, it certainly was not used to fleece their customers.

As for the camp storage chest, how does that imply the game was released incomplete? It was released as part of the Watcher's Keep DLC. Is Dragon Age an incomplete game wihtout that DLC, or any DLC?

Releasing DLC with desirable features does not indicate any duplicitous intent. It just means they want to sell that DLC better. The core game was still a complete package without it.

As for the equalizer pack, how does it imply ME2 was incomplete? Yes, it included items that were already included in previous DLC that those who pre-ordered from certain retailers obtained for free. It's a bad deal, I agree, and I did not purchase it. But again, that does not imply that DLC means games are released incomplete.

Again, at this point, I'd say its an issue of pricing. Is the DLC worth the money they charge for it? I certainly agree that this is up for debating.

What I take issue with is the notion that DLC necessarily implies that games are released incomplete, and that the designers could have just released the game with the DLC content without charging us more than the original game price. That is simply untrue.

One just needs to look at RtO to tell that this is not the case, specifically the trouble they had releasing it on time, as it was not complete at the time. Thereby implying that it required actual man hours to create and debug beyond the efforts spend on the original game. This cost has to be recouped somehow, and that's why DLC must be purchased (whether that price was fair is another matter).

Thank you.

Itkovian.

Modifié par Itkovian, 21 juillet 2010 - 07:58 .

[Mad Method]

On Shale: People who buy used copies of DAO are Bioware's customers too. Second-class citizenry for used copies is bullshit. They're fleecing.

As for the camp storage chest, maybe you missed all the hubbub about it, but yes, DAO is considered somewhat incomplete for lacking the party storage chest. It's not that DAO needs WK to be considered complete - although the whole DLC-on-launch dubiousness adds a rather considerable amount of credence to that notion; it's the camp storage chest - which is part of Warden's Keep. Circumstances suggest Bioware deliberately refrained from officially including a camp storage chest so that they could bundle it with Warden's Keep and thus charge money for that.

Even if they were magically unaware of (iirc) facts their own beta testers informed them by their own admission, a camp storage chest is definitely something that would have been normal (free) patch content in other circumstances.

Modifié par Mad Method, 21 juillet 2010 - 08:27 .

[DespiertaLosNinos]

Mad Method wrote...

Shale was originally part of DAO and Bioware knew that people want a camp storage chest since beta. It's curious that there are price tags affixed to both of them.

Shale is an interesting DLC to bring up though as it is included with any new sale. Yeah its priced exceptionally high but it is that way to deter people from buying used. The party storage chest in camp, developled by Bioware, is free...I think its the second object under the "projects" tab at the top of the screen. But as I said to Monstruo I have no intention of arguing Bioware's DLC pricing, I'm not personally in love with the cost but I also can't tell others what is a good use of their excess entertainment dollar.

[FieryDove]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Valve make better games than Bioware, they also have better customer service. You will be paying for probably every peice of DLC in Dragon Age 2, with content probably chopped out to combat resale. Valve would never do that, due to being wonderful human beings.

I disagree with everything except the CS. When Bio was just Bio they had top notch CS. EA's CS has always been...lacking to put it nicely.

As far as DLC/microtransactions EA has planned that for years and years and has been doing it for years. (See Sims1 and Sims 2 store.) People paying $3 for a lamp/hair/whatever....ugh

There was even an EA rep in a newspost saying they planned to take everything online and start charging for demo's and patches. That got pulled as someone higher up on the ladder had to do damage control and say they haven't said that...yet.

Quality RPG's were always Bio's strong suit, but they have to go where the money is and where they are directed now. EA Loves multi-platform everything and wants all the market share they can grab.

I do think Bio is trying to make too many changes to appeal to too many different tastes. For example the marketing for DAO. Many did take notice who may have not before and bought the game thinking it was kill-kill-kill Dungeon Siege or a new Diablo type game and all they got was talk-talk-talk. (According to some) We saw many complaints here and elsewhere when the game came out -too much talking, I just want to kill things!...or Why can't I kill EVERYONE...even plot npcs...

If a few of the big boys become sucessful with dlc/microtransactions/always online games even SP games the others will follow suit...its just a matter of time. Of course when that happens I find another hobby.

[Harley_Dude]

Some of the DLC is in response to used game sales. The publishers get nothing from used sales so the DLC is an added incentive for buying new. I think the DLC pricing needs to be matched to actual demand. I would like to see more sales on Xbox live for DLC that is not selling well or special deals for people that completed all achievements.

[Itkovian]

Mad Method wrote...

On Shale: People who buy used copies of DAO are Bioware's customers too. Second-class citizenry for used copies is bullshit. They're fleecing.

As for the camp storage chest, maybe you missed all the hubbub about it, but yes, DAO is considered somewhat incomplete for lacking the party storage chest. It's not that DAO needs WK to be considered complete - although the whole DLC-on-launch dubiousness adds a rather considerable amount of credence to that notion; it's the camp storage chest - which is part of Warden's Keep. Circumstances suggest Bioware deliberately refrained from officially including a camp storage chest so that they could bundle it with Warden's Keep and thus charge money for that.

Even if they were magically unaware of (iirc) facts their own beta testers informed them by their own admission, a camp storage chest is definitely something that would have been normal (free) patch content in other circumstances.

No, people who buy used copies of DAO are NOT Bioware's customers. They don't make any money off of it. They are the retailer's customers only. The Stone Prisoner was, like the Cerberus network, a way to try to maximize new game sales. And there is nothing malicious in the people actually making a product trying to maximize new purchases by having new purchases have greater value than a used one.

As for the storage chase, I find the notion that the game is incomplete without it rather dubious. It does not make the game, and is a very minor feature. And, as was already mentioned, it was included freely as part of the dev kit (perhaps as a way to encourage modding).

Itkovian

[Maverick827]

 Things I have learned from this thread:

1) $5 is a lot of money.  Things that cost $5 should cost less than $5.

2) In DLC with more than five minutes of dialog, there is less than or equal to five minutes worth of content.

3) You can't compare games to movies, but you can compare a boxed game produced created over five years with DLC created over a few months, using ratios to sound smart.

4) Everyone has bought all DLC and nobody will be buying any future DLC or Dragon Age II.

5) Only one person on these forums has basic economy and marketing under their belts.

6) You can quantify the quality of software based upon how many megabytes of storage it requires.

7) DLC is pie, and BioWare are waiters who do not wish to give us our pie.

8) If you have basic economy and marketing under your belt, you are able to realize that the United State's economic situation is a direct result of Dragon Age: Origins DLC being overpriced.

9) Inception is better than Return to Ostagar.

10) BioWare has seven years worth of content already created.  They are just holding off on releasing it to sell it to you later.  This is how development cycles work.

11) It took precisely one minute to make the Dragon Plate Armor.

12) Where do DLC end?

13) BioWare codes all DLC from scratch.  In Notepad.

14) "DA:O alone is easily worth $60" is the sequence used to initiate the self-destruct subroutine of forum trolls.

15) It takes 283749823489234 years to complete a map, but BioWare has been making maps for a while; if they can't make a map in only a few days, then they should all quit their jobs.

16) Return to Ostagar was overall bad.  Sadly.

17) The predominately free Shale DLC is overpriced.

18) It doesn't matter how large development costs are, the final product should be priced directly proportional to the volume of product that can be produced.

19) Nr is short for number.  Smart people use this.  Dumb as well as stupid people are sad in this world.

20) The ability to make good video games is directly related to the degree with which one is a wonderful human being.

21) A good rebuke to a person's point is to take what they say and reiterate that it is, indeed, what they have said.  Using this response many times is not hyprocritical.

22) Oblivion and Fallout 3 are not good games without extensive modding.  Bethesda makes better games than BioWare.

23) Used game purchasers are disenfranchised members of society.  Charging extra for used games is a civil rights issue.

Modifié par Maverick827, 21 juillet 2010 - 08:32 .

[London]

RE: Mad Method



Yes, we can agree to disagree. I guess I'm not as picky with the movies I watch, or the books I read. In fact, some of my favorite of both are by critic's standards terrible. I find enjoyment from quite a few mediums, and have the expendable income that does not make me even question whether I got ripped off over $7 dollars. I happen to have enjoyed the DLC's.



That said, they are a bit overpriced IF compared to the content you get for buying the entire game (I think it would cost hundreds of dollars of DLC to get the amount of game play the original game gives you for far less). But as minor stories here and there, and being a businessman, I understand that things are not produced without cost and a need for profit. So, I don't feel ripped off overall.

[Monstruo696]

24) Anyone who disagrees with me is a troll
25) A troll is someone who disagrees with the majority
26) Anyone who disrupts my mental peace and tranquility is some sort of nutjob (and a troll).
27) Change is bad
28) Must not think
29) Brain Hurt
30) Trolls trolling Trolls Trolls trolling Trolls trolling Trolls trolling Trolls.

Modifié par Monstruo696, 21 juillet 2010 - 08:36 .

[London]

RE: Monstruo



What other argument other than "Don't Like, Don't Buy" can we really make? Argue that Bioware should produce more expansive DLC for less money so they either break even and make no profit at all, or operate at a loss? It's not being realistic. That's now how a business operates.



So, there really is nothing other than if you do not like a product, do not buy it. I don't have any complaints about the DLC as far as quality. The only real complaint I have is that I believe all of the DLC items should have transported into Awakenings for additional use.

[Monstruo696]

SebastianDA wrote...

RE: Monstruo

What other argument other than "Don't Like, Don't Buy" can we really make? Argue that Bioware should produce more expansive DLC for less money so they either break even and make no profit at all, or operate at a loss? It's not being realistic. That's now how a business operates.

So, there really is nothing other than if you do not like a product, do not buy it. I don't have any complaints about the DLC as far as quality. The only real complaint I have is that I believe all of the DLC items should have transported into Awakenings for additional use.

Except I've asked how you can justify RTO for $5 and that is the only response I get.

I already understand how "don't like, don't buy" works.  I practice it all the time.

[Mad Method]

Itkovian wrote...

No, people who buy used copies of DAO are NOT Bioware's customers. They don't make any money off of it. They are the retailer's customers only.

They bought 100% legal copies of Bioware's games. They are 100% legitimate Bioware customers. Bioware made money off of the copy when it was initially sold; the money Bioware received from that copy is one of the places where Bioware's obligation to support that copy of the game comes from. The same rights extended to the first purchaser ought to have been carried to the used customer who received it afterwards.

The Stone Prisoner was, like the Cerberus network, a way to try to maximize new game sales. And there is nothing malicious in the people actually making a product trying to maximize new purchases by having new purchases have greater value than a used one.

It's price-gouging and screwing over the second-hand market, plain and simple. They are hurting their own customers because many of us like to sell, regift, etc. our copies when we are done with them. And a certain number of us would probably like to sell DA1 to afford DA2. This BS is of the same nature as with limited activations DRM (although DRM has more problems than just that).

As for the storage chest, I already made this point in the thread I linked above: There is a considerable difference between releasing it as retail or part of a patch for all DAO gamers to enjoy and as part of a dev kit which only reaches a small portion of DAO's PC gaming community.

Modifié par Mad Method, 13 janvier 2011 - 02:54 .