52 réponses à ce sujet

[cheeseslayersmu]

KalDurenik wrote...

GW sucks

Not if you pwn the hall of heroes

[Rianames]

hmmm... I put over 5000 hours in Guild Wars, costing me only € 150.00 total for the original plus the Faction's and Nightfall Campaigns plus the Eye of the North expension. That is about 3 Eurocents per hour....awesome score there for me

Can't wait for GW2 

Don't get me wrong, I do like Dragon Age a lot, but if I would like to have all DLC it's going to be one hell of an expensive game...

Modifié par Rianames, 23 novembre 2009 - 04:30 .

[DocDoomII]

So what? Morrowind can be finished in 10 minutes if you know what to do and how to do it.
Can't say for Oblivion, it's just to boring to play.

Modifié par DocDoomII, 23 novembre 2009 - 05:40 .

[Red_warning]

DLCs should be either cheaper or longer. I'd like them to be longer.

[Grovermancer]

BTW, I "fully unlocked" a Shale side-quest today. Adds some more time to the DLC for sure LOL! (this is my 4th play-through; to unlock it, Shale needs to be in your party for a specific mission, AND you have to play it right -- opposite of how I did my 2nd play-through)

[Infiniteone2]

5x12x15 = 900$



WoW really should have cost me 50,000$ for the amt of game time I got out of it.

[VladimirKal]

DocDoomII wrote...

So what? Morrowind can be finished in 10 minutes if you know what to do and how to do it.
Can't say for Oblivion, it's just to boring to play.

I can't help but feel that you're somehow missing the point in Morrowind.
And if that's the way you think of Morrowind then obviously you'll find Oblivion boring.

[Thnap]

I've spent an ungodly amount of time playing Morrowind. I wouldn't even like to think how much it would cost me by this logic. xD

[Gecon]

They can always make bigger and more expensive CEs. I think a version with a real handbook and all DLCs already on disk would sell even for $100 or $150.

Winterbay wrote...
Now, apply this to something like Guild
Wars with a free online gameplay and we get an interesting concept. I
think I've payed less than 1$/hour of play there

I dont think I played longer than 20 hours total until I was bored to death by Guild Wars. Thats with 50 euros spent 2,50 euro per hour.

[MachDelta]

Infiniteone2 wrote...

5x12x15 = 900$

WoW really should have cost me 50,000$ for the amt of game time I got out of it.

Please tell me you didn't pay monthly. Buying 6 month chunks saves you $2 a month, meaning 5 years of WoW only costs $780. Plus the retail boxes, minus the free playtime that everyone got (especially in the beginning when the servers were being crushed ).

Ah well, I only wasted about two years on WoW myself. Right up till Naxxramas. Then I got sick of bleeding edge raiding, went cold turkey, and never managed to crawl back (whew!).



Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot my best bang for the buck story: Unreal Tournament. Spent $50 on it and played the crap out of it and a dozen different mods (mostly Tactical Ops) for nearly four years. And this was back in the days before all this DLC malarkey, where we got four bonus packs (mini expansions) for FREE!
Good times.

Modifié par MachDelta, 27 novembre 2009 - 09:39 .

[vicendor]

Ive put more then 10000 hours in to Wow(from 04 to 09 with a few months breaks inbetween)...Thank god I quit for now at least...Tried the other mmos too like age of conan lord of the rings etc..I think ill stick to single player games for awhile there cheaper!

[Gecon]

Darth_Shizz wrote...
Real men drive heavy cars.

Yeah and nuke their neighbor with nuklear bombs should they dare to contradict.

Environment pollution for the win !

[Jonfon_ire]

Red_warning wrote...

DLCs should be either cheaper or longer. I'd like them to be longer.

Given that for every bit of DLC it has to go through a rigorous Quality Assurance process and then be put onto the web, advertised and integrated into the game and download system, I agree with you. Releasing lots of short wee bits of DLC when you've got fixed costs for each release due to these processes doesn't make huge sense to me. I've a feeling a lot of it is to cash in on the Console gamers who tend to complete a game and all it's associated bits, trade it in and move on.

But then you've the added problem that people are going to get put off the whole concept of DA DLC content and when a chunkier piece of content comes along people aren't going to bother because they disliked the length of the previous ones they've bought and have become soured on the whole idea of DLC for the game.

[Mordaedil]

DM Veil wrote...

Cydz wrote...

imagine what a mmo would cost you

Over 7200 hours spent on WoW, I cringe to even think about it.

7200 hours where you created most of the fun yourself. You've paid the right price for it.

DAO is however different in that it's crafted content.

As such, I feel it's maybe not exactly "hours played" worth. It's more likely maybe a third or worth valued of playtime, but for all the value/excess grafted in it, it's still superior to most JRPG's and other singleplayer games offered on the market.

And it also took 4 years to make, so it's about as epic as Duke Nukem Forever, except this game was actually released.

[Yevgenii]

DM Veil wrote...

Cydz wrote...

imagine what a mmo would cost you

Over 7200 hours spent on WoW, I cringe to even think about it.

thats over 300 days of pure playing. Hate to sound mean but that's HORRENDOUS lol. you couldve built a town on your own with that much time. or gotten laid 300 times. or watched "300" 3600 times.

[Valtonis]

Grovermancer wrote...


Since the DLC levels cost $7 and it takes around half an hour to get through each of them...  And it took me over 61 hrs to beat DAO the first run-through.  (got to lvl 20, did all the quests I could, listened to most dialogue, etc)

So if it takes me 1/2 an hour to clear a $7 DLC...
and 60+hrs to clear DAO,  (subtract 1 hr for the DLC to get 60)
then shouldn't DAO cost $840?


Or maybe instead the DLC should be either cheaper, or have a helluva lot more content in them.   

the basic theory is WRONG.


it should be that you take around 50 hrs to play the actually game and for simplicity's sake say it costs $50, then shouldn't a DLC that takes less then an hour to complet cost less than $1?

so you basically overpaid by more than 7 times

Modifié par Valtonis, 27 novembre 2009 - 03:00 .

[deathwing200]

Grovermancer wrote...


BTW, I "fully unlocked" a Shale side-quest today. Adds some more time to the DLC for sure LOL! (this is my 4th play-through; to unlock it, Shale needs to be in your party for a specific mission, AND you have to play it right -- opposite of how I did my 2nd play-through)

No he doesn't. 

[maladictor2009]

It will keep being like this trust me. This is the new goldmine for EA. DLC which provides almost nothing for 7-11 bucks. And when it hits it's peak it will be 7 bucks for something like the bloodarmour.

[Grovermancer]

deathwing200 wrote...

Grovermancer wrote...


BTW, I "fully unlocked" a Shale side-quest today. Adds some more time to the DLC for sure LOL! (this is my 4th play-through; to unlock it, Shale needs to be in your party for a specific mission, AND you have to play it right -- opposite of how I did my 2nd play-through)

No he doesn't. 

So you can just unlock it with dialogue/fondness rating?  She doesn't need to be on that 'one' mission to remember things about herself?  You can get her to remember just by talking to her?  (I thought it was that 'encounter' during that mission that set the whole thing in motion?)

Interesting.

(are you sure -- have you done this?)

Modifié par Grovermancer, 27 novembre 2009 - 03:17 .

[Grovermancer]

Valtonis wrote...

Grovermancer wrote...


Since the DLC levels cost $7 and it takes around half an hour to get through each of them...  And it took me over 61 hrs to beat DAO the first run-through.  (got to lvl 20, did all the quests I could, listened to most dialogue, etc)

So if it takes me 1/2 an hour to clear a $7 DLC...
and 60+hrs to clear DAO,  (subtract 1 hr for the DLC to get 60)
then shouldn't DAO cost $840?


Or maybe instead the DLC should be either cheaper, or have a helluva lot more content in them.   

the basic theory is WRONG.


it should be that you take around 50 hrs to play the actually game and for simplicity's sake say it costs $50, then shouldn't a DLC that takes less then an hour to complet cost less than $1?

so you basically overpaid by more than 7 times

Well, I was being a little sarcastic, and besides, look what I said above:

"Or maybe instead the DLC should be either cheaper, or have a helluva lot more content in them. "

Modifié par Grovermancer, 27 novembre 2009 - 03:19 .

[Chezdon]

vicendor wrote...

Ive put more then 10000 hours in to Wow(from 04 to 09 with a few months breaks inbetween)...Thank god I quit for now at least...Tried the other mmos too like age of conan lord of the rings etc..I think ill stick to single player games for awhile there cheaper!

So in those 5 years, 1 in every 5 days you played WoW. Jeeeez.

I bet you regret that! 

On topic, yes they were incredibly short. I might have missed things but it took me about 1 hr to do WK. I was level 19 when I did it though...

[Seifz]

Grovermancer wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

A premium sound system for my car costs $500 and weighs about 2kg. Since my car weighs around 2,000kg - a thousand times as much - it should cost $500,000 right?

IDK, how heavy a car is doesn't enter in to why I buy it.

It should!  The weight of the car is one of the largest factors in determining its fuel efficiency.  Why do you think engineers are and scientists are always working to develop lighter plastics and alloys?

In any case, the logic behind the original post is flawed.  It makes no sense, really.

[Grovermancer]

Seifz wrote...

Grovermancer wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

A premium sound system for my car costs $500 and weighs about 2kg. Since my car weighs around 2,000kg - a thousand times as much - it should cost $500,000 right?

IDK, how heavy a car is doesn't enter in to why I buy it.

It should!  The weight of the car is one of the largest factors in determining its fuel efficiency.  Why do you think engineers are and scientists are always working to develop lighter plastics and alloys?

In any case, the logic behind the original post is flawed.  It makes no sense, really.

***  Sighs , shakes head millionth time ***



First, it was sarcasm. 

Secondly, it IS logical, based on play-time, and a lesser extent, size and content, of the original game vs Warden's Keep.

The gist was that the DLC was short, it was small, it was basically a few items, yet it cost $7.

The original game is literally more than 50X longer, yet only cost about 7 or 8 times as much.

So either it was too cheap, or the DLC was too expensive.  That's the argument I sarcastically made.  Within that argument, about play-time, it is utterly logical. 

Oh, and game duration is important.  It's in reviews.  People often consider it  when shopping for a game. (or when complaining about the DLC here)

Customers don't ask how heavy a car is.  They ask it's MPG.  And besides,  that is NOT what the poster implied when he made the totally inapplicable analogy about how much his stereo/car weighed.


I really think that some people on these forums like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Modifié par Grovermancer, 27 novembre 2009 - 05:31 .

[Seifz]

Grovermancer wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Grovermancer wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

A premium sound system for my car costs $500 and weighs about 2kg. Since my car weighs around 2,000kg - a thousand times as much - it should cost $500,000 right?

IDK, how heavy a car is doesn't enter in to why I buy it.

It should!  The weight of the car is one of the largest factors in determining its fuel efficiency.  Why do you think engineers are and scientists are always working to develop lighter plastics and alloys?

In any case, the logic behind the original post is flawed.  It makes no sense, really.

***  Sighs , shakes head millionth time ***



First, it was sarcasm. 

Secondly, it IS logical, based on play-time, and a lesser extent, size and content, of the original game vs Warden's Keep.

The gist was that the DLC was short, it was small, it was basically a few items, yet it cost $7.

The original game is literally more than 50X longer, yet only cost about 6 or 7 times as much.

So either it was too cheap, or the DLC was too expensive.  That's the argument I sarcastically made.  Within that argument, it is utterly logical. 

Oh, and play TIME is important.  It's in reviews.  People consider it  weather or not they buy a game. 

People don't ask how heavy a car is.  They ask it's MPG.  And that is NOT what the poster implied when he made the totally inapplicable analogy about how much his stereo/car weighed.


I really think that some people on these forums like to argue for the sake of arguing.

Or more people will buy the game than the DLC, by far, so BioWare needs to charge each DLC player more $/content (however you'd like to measure it) to make up the development costs + profit.

[Jolly Teaparty]

Cydz wrote...

imagine what a mmo would cost you

Know what an MMO DOES cost you