188 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Amyntas wrote...

Why shouldn't a customer be allowed to sell a game like any other product?

They can.

The buyer just loses on content for getting an alternative that gives no profit towards Bioware / EA but instead gives all it's money to the used gaming market. Gamestop and such had been leaching money from companies for years, Project Ten Dollar is possibly the only time I've seen a company fight back.

[Bryy_Miller]

Dave of Canada wrote...

NovenseiWarden wrote...

I didn't like it too much. It made it clear Shale wouldn't be pivotal to the plot in any way, and made him feel less vital of a character.

Really?

I felt Shale's importance as a character to be roughly the same as Sten / Oghren / Zevran / Wynne. While not REALLY important, they had their uses.

I'd go as far as to say that Shale is one of the most important members of your team.

[David Gaider]

Ashr4m wrote...
I wonder about your personal opinion, lets take cars for example, would you think its okay if car-producers implemented some sort of new business model that would make it impossible for you to resell the car? If yes why? If no, why are games different?

Of course not. But nobody is talking about making it impossible to resell a game, are we?

You can resell a car, and if you buy a used car you get a car that works. If a dealer were to offer incentives where you got bonus things for buying the car new from them rather than used from someone else, then what would be the problem with that? Should the new buyer automatically be entitled to those extras the original buyer got? I don't think so, especially considering the fact that you're probably also getting a much better deal on the used car as it is.

Mecha Tengu wrote...
you mean to tell me, that while the game has been completed and is in the 2 month process of shipping, you THEN decide to work on new DLC? Why couldnt it have been in the original game?

Because we didn't want it to be?

Don't we always decide how much content actually goes into the released product? And that the more content that is there the more value might be perceived by the customer? And that you as the customer thus decide if that's worth your purchase? Or are you suggesting that you are automatically entitled to anything that was ever made for a particular title or ever would be made from the one purchase?

If we decided (and that's "if") to create content for a game to be shipped upon or after release, why does that make a difference so long as the game that you purchased was a quality experience?

Modifié par David Gaider, 12 août 2010 - 06:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Shale certainly plays a larger role in the main quest than some other companions do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David's right. They offer something for sale at a certain price, and we can buy it or not. If we don't buy it, then they've had no effect on our lives. If we do, and we're happy with the game, then we got a good deal. That the game could have been better doesn't change whether we enjoyed what we got.

[the_one_54321]

David Gaider wrote...
If we decided (and that's "if") to create content for a game to be shipped upon or after release, why does that make a difference so long as the game that you purchased was a quality experience?

It might make a difference to my view of your business practices. For me, personally, Return to Ostagar, and a number of the other DLCs have all been gradually deminishing my opinion of BioWare post production support on games. My opinion is far from being the majority around here, but nor is it a single voice in the crowd.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 12 août 2010 - 05:51 .

[Rubbish Hero]

I think the best option is to just hold off and be patient, all the dribble crap DLC will be sold on steam half a year later for 50%/75% off in a collectors, Games Of The year limited, Digital Deluxe all the crap that wasn't in the original game but it still useless crap edition.  I think supporting DLC is bad, as most of it, is just a money grab. You probably should have big balls and demand expansion packs. Sadly, people are supporting Call Of Duty's Substanceless packs, which are basically, 5 maps a single user could make in about a month with the tools available. No voice acting, soundtrack or other budgetary lampoons other than paying employee's. Three of the makes were simple re-skins of Call Of Duty 4 maps. Sold at a price of £10.99. Here, that's about half the price of a full game. The actual game itself was £10 over normal pc game price because they are greedy and indeed as Davey boy put it, evil to the bone. The Call Of Duty map packs have sold 20 million times over. Proving gamers are quite possibly the most gullible human beings in existence.

Meanwhile, another Team Fortress 2 update is coming out next month, for free, obviously.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 12 août 2010 - 06:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It might make a difference to my view of your business practices. For me, personally, Return to Ostagar, and a number of the other DLCs have all been gradually deminishing my opinion of BioWare post production support on games. My opinion is far from being the majority around here, but nor is it a single voice in the crowd.

But if you don't buy them, they have no impact on your gameplay experience.

DLC can't diminish your opinion of a game, because they're either something you want (they make the game better) or they're something you don't play (they leave the game as it is).

[Chairon de Celeste]

While it may not apply to top notch games like Bioware's,
protection from resales may be still be the only way
to still make money with the less than mediocre mass production
for all platforms alike wich flush out of their pipelines on daily base
- titles most forget a few minutes after reading their name and box
text.

At least they allow us to appreciate game like the DA series even
more

heck even the worst possible dlc here and now may be worth more attention
then the dust collectors and chinese recycling hoodle aspirants
I had to work my way through to get my da copy last year in a retail
market.

Modifié par Chairon de Celeste, 12 août 2010 - 06:04 .

[the_one_54321]

Rubbish Hero wrote...
I think the best option is to just hold off and be patient, all the dribble crap DLC will be sold on steam half a year later for 50%/75% off in a collectors,Games Of The YEar limited, Digital Deluxe all the crap that wasn't in the original game but it still useless edition.  I think supporting DLC is bad, as most of it, is just a money grab. You probably should have big balls and demand expansion packs. Sadly, people are support Call Of Duty's Substanceless packs, which are basically, 5 maps a single user could make in about a month with the tools available. No voice acting, soundtrack or other budgetary lampoons other than paying employee's. Three of the makes were simple re-skins of Call Of Duty 4 maps. Sold at a price of £10.99. Here, that's about half the price of a full game. The actual game itself was £10 over normal pc game price because they are greedy and indeed and Davey boy put it, evil to the bone. The Call Of Duty map packs have sold 20 million times over. Proving gamers are quite possibly the most gullible human beings in existence.

Meanwhile, another Team Fortress 2 update is coming out next month, for free, obviously.

I dislike your phrasing, but otherwise agree with everything you have to say. I haven't bought a single DLC, for... anything actually. And I will continue to refuse to buy DLC until it fits what I see as a ... not... ridiculously bad business model.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
It might make a difference to my view of your business practices. For me, personally, Return to Ostagar, and a number of the other DLCs have all been gradually deminishing my opinion of BioWare post production support on games. My opinion is far from being the majority around here, but nor is it a single voice in the crowd.

But if you don't buy them, they have no impact on your gameplay experience.

DLC can't diminish your opinion of a game, because they're either something you want (they make the game better) or they're something you don't play (they leave the game as it is).

That's right. They deminish my view of the companies business practices. Not the game's quality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

That's right. They deminish my view of the companies business practices. Not the game's quality.

That's entirely fair.

I'll buy the DLC if I think I'll enjoy the DLC.  I stopped buying the DLC for DAO after patch 1.03 came out because patch 1.03 actually changes how DAO plays, so it does diminish my gameplay experience there.

And since BioWare hasn't been willing to help me out there (I asked how to install multiple instances of the game so I could run both versions), I stopped buying the DLC.

[Mecha Tengu]

David Gaider wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...
you mean to tell me, that while the game has been completed and is in the 2 month process of shipping, you THEN decide to work on new DLC? Why couldnt it have been in the original game?

Because we didn't want it to be?

Don't we always decide how much content actually goes into the released product? And that the more content that is there the more value might be perceived by the customer? And that you as the customer thus decide if that's worth your purchase? Or are you suggesting that you are automatically entitled to anything that was ever made for a particular title or ever would be made from the one purchase?

If we decided (and that's "if") to create content for a game to be shipped upon or after release, why does that make a difference so long as the game that you purchased was a quality experience?

Because I am being asked to pay an additional $7 on the FIRST DAY that I have got the game after having paid $50.

dont you think that would aggravate customers? a month isn't a big deal, the entire project have have only even taken weeks, it could have easily been included in the main release, but instead you decided it wasnt ready yet, and you completed it after it was released just to sell as DLC

or you worked on it AFTER the shipping date, but it was completed for the date of Day 1 when it reaches stores. I see no reason to force yourself on due dates for DLC, you sure that you always decide how much content actually goes into the released product? or is EA in charge of that

Modifié par Mecha Tengu, 12 août 2010 - 06:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Because I am being asked to pay an additional $7 on the FIRST DAY that I have got the game after having paid $50.

So BioWare shouldn't ever try to sell you another product right after bought one?

What exactly are you complaining about?  They sold you a game.  You bought it (voluntarily).  Then they offer to sell you an add-on to that game.  You can buy it or not - it's up to you.  Why are you offended by being given the option to buy something when you did just buy something?

[bzombo]

David Gaider wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...
you mean to tell me, that while the game has been completed and is in the 2 month process of shipping, you THEN decide to work on new DLC? Why couldnt it have been in the original game?

Because we didn't want it to be?

Don't we always decide how much content actually goes into the released product? And that the more content that is there the more value might be perceived by the customer? And that you as the customer thus decide if that's worth your purchase? Or are you suggesting that you are automatically entitled to anything that was ever made for a particular title or ever would be made from the one purchase?

If we decided (and that's "if") to create content for a game to be shipped upon or after release, why does that make a difference so long as the game that you purchased was a quality experience?

i always like more content, and i know it has to be paid for. freebies are nice, but not expected. someone has to pay for development costs. dlc is a good idea, but it does get costly after a while. i bought the pc collector's edition, and after dlc purchases i've spent about $80-$90 on the game. i think a lot of people see dlc as a way to drive up the price of a game while keeping the price of the retail copy the same. when someone buys a game used they're expecting to save a few bucks. they do for the original game, but if they want dlc they have to pour another $30+ inot the game. i think a lot of people resent having to pay more than what they paid for the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

bzombo wrote...

i bought the pc collector's edition, and after dlc purchases i've spent about $80-$90 on the game.

Still a pretty good deal.  Adjusted for inflation I spent about $160 for new games in the mid-80s.  Prices have fallen a lot since then.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why are you offended by being given the option to buy something when you did just buy something?

Perhaps offended is too strong a word. But what is distasteful is the deliberateness of the situation. It almost gives the feeling of a bait-and-switch operation. Which they are well within their rights to do, and I am well within my rights to find distasteful and to ask that they not do it anymore.

[Mecha Tengu]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Because I am being asked to pay an additional $7 on the FIRST DAY that I have got the game after having paid $50.

So BioWare shouldn't ever try to sell you another product right after bought one?

What exactly are you complaining about?  They sold you a game.  You bought it (voluntarily).  Then they offer to sell you an add-on to that game.  You can buy it or not - it's up to you.  Why are you offended by being given the option to buy something when you did just buy something?

they are selling me parts and parts of a game

I have no problem buying full games, but selling me bits and pieces of a game is annoying especially when each pack is $5-7 and taxes are counted inidividually.

Its like selling a book, and to read some extra bonus chapters, you go pay a fee to unlock them. No thanks, I just paid a lot of money for this book, and please start working on your next book or dont attempt to milk me at all.

[Chairon de Celeste]

Strange, Warden's  Keep didn't feel complete for me.
- i waited for a main dlc npc to send for the warden like a
retard until the unofficial wiki 'told' me he would
never do that.



Hopefully nothing like that ships with da 2 dlc.

Modifié par Chairon de Celeste, 12 août 2010 - 06:19 .

[Mecha Tengu]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

bzombo wrote...

i bought the pc collector's edition, and after dlc purchases i've spent about $80-$90 on the game.

Still a pretty good deal.  Adjusted for inflation I spent about $160 for new games in the mid-80s.  Prices have fallen a lot since then.

$160 for an individual game?!!?!?!?!?!

and the hell, prices have risen! Recession, war, and oil shortages. Transportation of goods is more expensive

[Amyntas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Because I am being asked to pay an additional $7 on the FIRST DAY that I have got the game after having paid $50.

So BioWare shouldn't ever try to sell you another product right after bought one?

What exactly are you complaining about?  They sold you a game.  You bought it (voluntarily).  Then they offer to sell you an add-on to that game.  You can buy it or not - it's up to you.  Why are you offended by being given the option to buy something when you did just buy something?

You're missing the point. First-day dlc exists to discourage used sales of video games. It's a trick to diminish the value of any second-hand game you buy to make you buy an original copy (which includes a one-time code for dlc). I think it speaks poorly of the video game industry that this is considered acceptable.

[Dave of Canada]

Mecha Tengu wrote...


and the hell, prices have risen! Recession, war, and oil shortages. Transportation of goods is more expensive

No.

Since the 80-90s, game prices have decreased by a lot. Donkey Kong Contry for example cost 99.99 (Canada)

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 12 août 2010 - 06:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

$160 for an individual game?!!?!?!?!?!

Yeah.  I spent as much as $80 for a new game in 1986, and 1986 dollars were worth a lot more than 2010 dollars.

and the hell, prices have risen! Recession, war, and oil shortages. Transportation of goods is more expensive

Yes, overall prices have risen.  That's inflation - the government increases the money supply and the value of each individual dollar goes down.  That's hy things cost more.

But games cost less.  A lot less, as shown by my 1986 comparison.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 août 2010 - 06:17 .

[Mecha Tengu]

Amyntas wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Because I am being asked to pay an additional $7 on the FIRST DAY that I have got the game after having paid $50.

So BioWare shouldn't ever try to sell you another product right after bought one?

What exactly are you complaining about?  They sold you a game.  You bought it (voluntarily).  Then they offer to sell you an add-on to that game.  You can buy it or not - it's up to you.  Why are you offended by being given the option to buy something when you did just buy something?

You're missing the point. First-day dlc exists to discourage used sales of video games. It's a trick to diminish the value of any second-hand game you buy to make you buy an original copy (which includes a one-time code for dlc). I think it speaks poorly of the video game industry that this is considered acceptable.

you are talking about Shale and blood dragon armour which came free with 1st hand copies

we're talking about warden's keep and first day $7