188 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amyntas wrote...

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.

Its objective doesn't change what it is.

It's a product.  It's for sale.  There's nothing wrong with that.

[bzombo]

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.

true, it is, but i was trying to get into why people are upset. you pay $50-$60 for a game just to spend another $30. some people resent it. i would be mad if the game were intentionally broken and dlc was needed to unlock the game and make it playable. as it stands, we get a full game and dlc to enhance the game, so i'm fine with it as long as it's optional. hasn't mattered yet since i've bought everything.

[Cypher0020]

-blinks-



I'm......so lost

[bzombo]

my memory must be gone. i can't remember if i bought warden's keep or not. i have it, but i don't remember if the collector's edition came with warden's keep or i bought it on day one.

[Mecha Tengu]

bzombo wrote...

my memory must be gone. i can't remember if i bought warden's keep or not. i have it, but i don't remember if the collector's edition came with warden's keep or i bought it on day one.

hzzzzz

Modifié par Mecha Tengu, 12 août 2010 - 06:42 .

[Doveberry]

I love DLC. Absolutely adore it. And I really don't mind paying for it, since I've loved every Bioware game since BG1 (Some more than others, of course. BG2 is still my favourite). If any company deserves my money, it's Bioware. But I expect that not everyone would share that view.

[Mecha Tengu]

Doveberry wrote...

I love DLC. Absolutely adore it. And I really don't mind paying for it, since I've loved every Bioware game since BG1 (Some more than others, of course. BG2 is still my favourite). If any company deserves my money, it's Bioware. But I expect that not everyone would share that view.

DLC was a good concept, now its being so heavily abused. Especially for those console gamers who will probably never ever get freebie DLCs

[Daur]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

Really? What role does Shale play in the main quest? I have not noticed anything at all cept for the connection to Caradin.

Please enlighten me

[Birdieboink]

Ashr4m wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Which I also think is a fine idea, if done correctly.

But, again, I'm not the person who decides whether we make any of this stuff. Take it as indication of anything at your peril.

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?

I think this is some sort of logical flaw in many publishers mind, people dont have infinite money for luxury like games, by selling their old games, they get money to buy new games. And yes i understood your point before, but for me reselling ist just a natural thing on the free market. I cant think of any reason why the gaming-industry would be different.

Also i wonder, if i would like to stop me from reselling you wouldnt have chance. Its just like the fight against piracy. For example, you sell DLC and stick my games to accounts. Yet i can simply bypass this system by simply making a new account for every game and sell the DVD with the account. In most countries it wouldnt even be a problem with your Eula etc. since for example european customer law is pretty strickt, most of the Eulas would never stand a chance in court (at least in most european countries).

Cars cost several thousand dollars/pounds/euros/whatever. They're incredibly expensive, and very difficult to afford. Car companies also tend to make quite a bit of money on each new car sold, and no one in their right mind is going to kill the economy by banning the sale of used automobiles. Games aren't nearly as expensive, so they really can't be compared. Plus, cars need ongoing maintenance, and car companies make a fortune off of car parts for used cars. You could argue that car parts are like DLC, except that DLC is optional, and parts can be mandatory.

DVDs and CDs, on the other hand, are very cheap. They usually cost anywhere between $10 to $40 on release, and the $40 stuff usually includes a ton of extras that I would kill to get in a game, since most game extras are totally lame. $40 is about the limit the people I've talked to seem to have for impulse buying. Once they near $50, they start going "wait, this is almost half of a hundred dollars." Impulse buying goes out the window when you hit $50 or so, unless you're filthy rich.

In other words, people are more likely to buy a $10 DVD from Best Buy or a $12 album from iTunes from a band they like because it's a fairly inconsequential amount. After all, it's about the cost of two or three sandwiches from a fast food place. It's easier to buy a new DVD or CD than it is to go seek out a used store and buy a used album, which means that the .

Games, on the other hand, are above impulse buy range, but not in economy-crashing range/making money on new parts range, which means that selling them used won't really affect the economy at all, but because games are out of impulse range, people still think about whether they're going to buy them or not, and are more likely to hunt down used copies than new ones.

In other words, games are in a place where people are more likely to buy used copies than new ones, so they don't make as much money as other forms of media, and there's no way that the devs can make money off them (like car companies can) without offering add-ons.

Personally, I think devs would make more money if they started selling games for $40 or so, since putting them in impulse range means people would stop thinking too much about buying them or not, and would be more likely to pick them up if they looked remotely cool.

That's why arguing that no one else combats used sales as much is a crappy argument.

All that said, Bioware's DLC is crazy expensive compared to the actual cost of a game, and I'm against paid-for DLC on those grounds. The only people doing paid-for DLC right are Remedy, Gearbox (Knoxx is closer to an expansion than a DLC, but only costs $10! That means I will buy it without reservation), and Bethesda (for Fallout 3).

Amgarrak was fun enough, I guess, and it seemed to be more worth it cost-wise than other DLCs like the short, disappointing Leliana's Song (they should have built up some trust for Marjorlaine, instead of making it obvious she was going to betray you the entire time). In addition, $2 for some glasses in Mass Effect or for some guns or something seems a bit extreme too.

Modifié par Birdieboink, 13 août 2010 - 12:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Daur wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

Really? What role does Shale play in the main quest? I have not noticed anything at all cept for the connection to Caradin.

The consequences of that connection to Caridin lead to a far bigger gameplay obstacle than anything the other companions offer.

Many of the companons can turn on you.  Only Shale can do it at such an inopportune time.

[Alyka]

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?

This is basicly what I was trying to say in my OP.The reason why I went into an explaination (and possibly a bit off topic) is because there have been people on these forums who blame everything on Bioware.EA,game stores,MS and we the customers are also involved, not just them.It would be nice if they were cut some slack.
 
Edit:Everyone is entitled to their opinion.I'm just trying to be positive and look at the whole picture.And yeah, I do agree that some DLC doesn't seem worth the price after I've played it but that's my own fault for buying it in the first place.It's subjective.At least I can walk away knowing that maybe some of my money is going towards the next game that might be awesome.

Modifié par Alyka, 13 août 2010 - 02:33 .

[AlanC9]

Amyntas wrote...
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).

Itals mine. How can this be a trick when we all know exactly what is being sold?

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Amyntas wrote...
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).

Itals mine. How can this be a trick when we all know exactly what is being sold?

Exactly.  It's not like they're deceiving us.  I don't see how they're deceiving second-hand buyers, either, but even if they were there can't be anything wrong with that.  They have no responsibility to second-hand buyers because they have no relationship with second-hand buyers.

[SirOccam]

So theoretically, releasing the exact same game but not offering any DLC would be preferable to releasing it with optional DLC. That is nutty. You can achieve the first situation by choosing not to buy the DLC.

[StingingVelvet]

David Gaider wrote...
Why not? It might discourage me from buying it as a resale, but that's its intention, no?

Because it adds hassle to paying customers and devalues the product by putting some of it behind a wall.

David Gaider wrote...
Let them complain to the company they're buying the media from-- which is the company supplying the resale. They're not our paying customers, after all, are they?

They're your potential customers, if nothing else.

David Gaider wrote...
Hey, it's not my decision-- but considering that we make no money off of resales at all I think it's only fair that we get to offer incentives for people to buy the game in a way that benefits the people who made it. You are still getting what you're paying for, after all: the game itself, and if that's the only thing that concerns you then I don't really see the issue. Do you have an intrinsic right to extras that I'm not aware of?

It's about making the best product possible, which means complete and ready to play, not half-locked away or dependent on an EA server which might not be long for this world.  I completely understand the fact that you realize a lot of people are playing your game without giving you any money... I get that... I can see why it is aggravating, but the same thing applies to every other industry.  Hammers, cars, books, refrigerators... game companies seem to think they are special in some way and they they can be the ones to change that, but it just ends up annoying customers and potential customers.

Why is this industry so willing, through resale issues, DRM and whatever else, to annoy their customers?

David Gaider wrote...
I'm not sure how people buying used games "fuels new media sales"-- it helps the company that is re-selling the game, and short of that gamer buying something like DLC for the game that's about it.

Because a lot of people only pay $50 got a game knowing tha they can get $30 or so of it back if they don't like it or don't think it's worth keeping?  Because a lot of people sell games when they're done with them to be able to afford new games, which a lot of the time are yours?

[shnizzler93]

You know what, I'm a console gamer. Guess what else. I don't care about/mind paying for DLC. Especially when it's for games that I like, from game companies that I like. I am definitely not the richest person in the world, or even in this forum for sure, but if I have the money, and the DLC gets good reviews, I buy it. If it isn't rated so well, I don't buy it. Simple as that.



I'm not complaining about the price because, like I said, if it is too expensive/isn't fun, I don't buy it. I don't feel sorry for myself for missing part of the game.



*Semi-related: The concept of fanboyism predates videogames by centuries. Read GamePro's article about it.

[David Gaider]

StingingVelvet wrote...
Because it adds hassle to paying customers and devalues the product by putting some of it behind a wall.

Sorry, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. Someone who buys a game via resale is not a paying customer. They're a paying customer of wherever they bought the game from, and that's it. If you wish to become a paying customer at that point, you're free to buy the DLC or not-- it's up to you. The game itself is complete-- it comes with everything we intended to ship the game with, and unless you feel somehow compelled to buy the extras you're under no obligation to. We're not locking away the ending of the game or anything like that. At worst we'd be devaluing the game by not including all the content that you could have if you also bought the extras. But that is our choice-- as is the amount of content we include for any game, whether there is DLC or not. I think we'd like to look on it as increasing the value of the game by offering extra content to those who want more and are willing to pay for it-- which includes people who bought the game at resale.

As I said before, you'll have to decide for yourself whether that makes the original game worth less or not, though quite frankly we're talking about games (at least our games) that already have a lot of content in them. The idea that someone could feel entitled to everything that was ever made or would be made for a game, and considers anything less "incomplete", seems rooted in the fact that DLC is relatively new. Once upon a time you bought a game and that's all there was to it, considering that on-the-shelf retail was the only way to get deliver it to the customer.

So long as the main game we deliver is a quality product, I don't personally have any qualms about it. You're free to disagree and make any decisions you would about the value of the games you buy, but I find some of the indignation I see about it in some corners both misplaced as well as a little mystifying.

But that's just my opinion. In the end I imagine BioWare and every other company will do whatever they can to make money in a tough market. For all the qualms people express about what this is doing to the industry, I think I can safely say that this is the industry as it currently stands. That's the reality.

Modifié par David Gaider, 13 août 2010 - 05:00 .

[Hawksblud]

Personally, I far prefer DLC to DRM. DLC is a legitimate way to create more profit, post-release, while keeping our interest in the series while spending most time working on the sequel. As Mr. Gaider said, it doesn't devalue or strip the base game of its worth, which the more insidious bits of DRM can. (Oh, Spore, I could have killed you. Good thing you turned out to be a sub-par game.) But basically, yes. Above post by DG is all.

[Dave of Canada]

Hawksblud wrote...

As Mr. Gaider said, it doesn't devalue or strip the base game of its worth, which the more insidious bits of DRM can. (Oh, Spore, I could have killed you. Good thing you turned out to be a sub-par game.)

Assassin's Creed 2.

*shudder*

[Rubbish Hero]

Hawksblud wrote...Personally, I far prefer DLC to DRM..

25 million people willingly use steam because aside from a game, they are getting a beneficial, not detrimental service, which includes completely free DLC with years, not months of support. Whereas many companies are chastising you in order to get profit, Valve attempt to give you a better customer service.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 13 août 2010 - 05:20 .

[StingingVelvet]

David Gaider wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...
Because it adds hassle to paying customers and devalues the product by putting some of it behind a wall.

Sorry, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. Someone who buys a game via resale is not a paying customer. They're a paying customer of wherever they bought the game from, and that's it. If you wish to become a paying customer at that point, you're free to buy the DLC or not-- it's up to you. The game itself is complete-- it comes with everything we intended to ship the game with, and unless you feel somehow compelled to buy the extras you're under no obligation to. We're not locking away the ending of the game or anything like that. At worst we'd be devaluing the game by not including all the content that you could have if you also bought the extras. But that is our choice-- as is the amount of content we include for any game, whether there is DLC or not. I think we'd like to look on it as increasing the value of the game by offering extra content to those who want more and are willing to pay for it-- which includes people who bought the game at resale.

As I said before, you'll have to decide for yourself whether that makes the original game worth less or not, though quite frankly we're talking about games (at least our games) that already have a lot of content in them. The idea that someone could feel entitled to everything that was ever made or would be made for a game, and considers anything less "incomplete", seems rooted in the fact that DLC is relatively new. Once upon a time you bought a game and that's all there was to it, considering that on-the-shelf retail was the only way to get deliver it to the customer.

So long as the main game we deliver is a quality product, I don't personally have any qualms about it. You're free to disagree and make any decisions you would about the value of the games you buy, but I find some of the indignation I see about it in some corners both misplaced as well as a little mystifying.

But that's just my opinion. In the end I imagine BioWare and every other company will do whatever they can to make money in a tough market. For all the qualms people express about what this is doing to the industry, I think I can safely say that this is the industry as it currently stands. That's the reality.

I think you're putting words in my mouth a little there.  For the record I have bought every game you guys ever made on the PC brand new and for full price and have never sold any of them.

As a customer of yours, let me tell you just in general how I feel about it.  I feel like the game in the box I bought is not complete because there are at launch aspects to it, add-ons or not, that I do not have, despite paying full price.  This is not about post-launch stuff which I bought and am satisfied with, this is about the entire game on release day.  Now for me personally, as I bought the games new and activated them, this applies more to pre-order DLC than the Cerebus Network, but the idea remains the same.  I do not look at it as added value to the product that amazon gave me Inferno Armor, I look at it as devaluing the product that I did not get the pre-order bonuses from the other shops.

For a resold game I assume used game buyers feel much the same; they don't look at it as an added value for buying new, they look at it as lack of value in what they bought.  Now if you don't care about them that's fine, but again I do think they send money your way indirectly for reasons I stated; a lot of people would not buy your games new if the resale market was gone.

Even for someone who has the Cerebus Network, like myself, it's annoying to me as a paying customer to have Warden's Keep and Shale especially locked behind an EA server activation process rather than on the disc with the game itself.  I had to put in my code, I had to download, at least once I had an issue with EA not activating my DLC for whatever reason and not being able to load my saved games.  It's a hassle for me, the person who did give you $60 or whatever the collector's edition cost (nice map by the way, I hope you continue giving new game buyers nice collectables like that).

I'm not attacking you, you make great games and I want you to get paid for it, I am just telling you how a Bioware supporter feels about it.  I don't view it as an addition, I view it as a hassle.

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 13 août 2010 - 05:21 .

[Dave of Canada]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Hawksblud wrote...Personally, I far prefer DLC to DRM..

25 million people willingly use steam because aside from a game, they are getting a beneficial, not detrimental service, which includes completely free DLC with years, not months of support. Whereas many companies are chastising you in order to get profit, Valve attempt to give you a better customer service.

We get it.

You like Lord of the Rings, Robocop and Valve.

[Hawksblud]

Rubbish Hero wrote...
Whereas many companies are chastising you in order to get profit, Valve attempt to give you a better customer service.

I don't know where you're getting 'chastised' from 'spending time and money to create more gaming opportunity in a series both the devs and the players love, and then trying to get a positive rate of return on it.' My problem with DRM is, when I buy something, it should be mine. With DLC, I haven't bought it yet. That content was not a part of the game I paid for. Just because it's in the same series, does not make it a piece of my paid-for game. I wouldn't expect the company to hand over Awakening or DA:2 for free, after all, just because I paid for DA:O.

[Rubbish Hero]

Hawksblud wrote...I don't know where you're getting 'chastised'

Ubisoft, EA, Playstation Network, Xboxlive, Microsoft, Activision e.t.c....

Hawksblud wrote..'spending time and money to create more gaming
opportunity in a series both the devs and the players love

Valve benefit in the long run, not a short run easy buck.
They are pretty much the  king of digital distrabution, making millions and millions.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 13 août 2010 - 05:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

25 million people willingly use steam because aside from a game, they are getting a beneficial, not detrimental service

Involuntary patching and the need to be online to play (for many games) is not a positive feature.