298 réponses à ce sujet

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Pseudocognition wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

TripedWire wrote...


Maybe a direct comparison is inelegant but the point I was trying to make is that being creative should not be a means to the ends of making bucks.

Most artists will agree with you. The devil here isn't the artists, it's the publishers who would sell their mothers int slavery to make a quick buck.

I'm an artist and I disagree. Making a video game is a long, expensive process, and if it was my job to be involved in that process I would like to earn income and benefits for the duration of my time working at the company. It is exceedingly possible to be creative and passionate and also support yourself.

There's a difference between making a profit and screwing people over.

[Saibh]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

So instead of using that money to fund a game still in development, they use that money to fund a character for that game separately? No matter which way you turn it, they're still removing it.

Again, what you don't understand is that the funds are separate. If DLC didn't exist, than those characters wouldn't. Where would that money go, you ask? Back into EA's pockets, I say, to be used elsewhere.

Arguing against the existence of DLC is silly. It's just a new way to make expansions that is much more economically sound.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

BTCentral wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

And that's the problem. So because enough of our public is willing to eat ****, the rest of us are forced to.

No, the problem is people like you that think you are entitled to something for nothing.

You can argue all you like, but at the end of the day, that's what it comes down to.

---

Wonder how much longer before the:

lockdown!

Yes how dare we try to prevent the video game industry from heading into the garbage dump that is Hollywood.

[Dave of Canada]

Revan312 wrote...

Every little thing you allow a corporation to do freely builds up until you won't be able to buy a game without an ID, credit card number, it's restricted to one install on one computer that has to be online at all times and it has half the content it normally would but has a plethora of DLC that will actually fill out the game for only an additional 35 dollars...

Over dramatize more

[Saibh]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

TripedWire wrote...


Maybe a direct comparison is inelegant but the point I was trying to make is that being creative should not be a means to the ends of making bucks.

Most artists will agree with you. The devil here isn't the artists, it's the publishers who would sell their mothers int slavery to make a quick buck.

I'm an artist and I disagree. Making a video game is a long, expensive process, and if it was my job to be involved in that process I would like to earn income and benefits for the duration of my time working at the company. It is exceedingly possible to be creative and passionate and also support yourself.

There's a difference between making a profit and screwing people over.

A companion wouldn't be there and your life would be ruined without him. The whole gaming experience, incomplete!

I've been stolen from, I tell you! Hide your kids, hide your wife, hide your money, because they be stealing from everybody up in here.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

There's a difference between making a profit and screwing people over.

This isn't screwing people over, it's offering a bonus to those who intend to pay the full price later which only requires a tiny down payment now that you can cancel at any time.

[Gavinthelocust]

Harid wrote...

This argument has gone circular. Bailing out unless addressed.

This is how things usually go here, an argument starts and by the fourth page it's become a flame war with a blend of insane troll logic and extreme ignorance.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

Every little thing you allow a corporation to do freely builds up until you won't be able to buy a game without an ID, credit card number, it's restricted to one install on one computer that has to be online at all times and it has half the content it normally would but has a plethora of DLC that will actually fill out the game for only an additional 35 dollars...

Over dramatize more

It's not a dramatization when it's true though. 10 years ago the concept of this kind of DLC BS would be a dramatization. It's just a fact of our culture that companies do this, and as long as consumers let them inch forward, they'll keep moving.

The real question is how long till consumers wake up like they did with the music industry (which admittedly, is still ****).

[DirtyVagrant]

TJPags wrote...

DirtyVagrant wrote...

And for the record, I wouldn't have a problem with this if there wasn't a time limit on it, akin to Shale or Zaeed. Fine, it encourages you to purchase the game new as opposed to used where the developers do not get the money for their work. But I have to pay extra because I don't pre-order a special edition by January 10th? C'mon, that isn't cool...

I know, right?

How AWFUL that they want you to buy something early rather than late.

I suppose you hate all sales, right?

That isn't the point. It should already be included IN the game. They can develop addition DLC and sell it later all they want, I have qualms with that. But a limited day 1 "DLC"? I stress the limited part.

Modifié par DirtyVagrant, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:54 .

[BTCentral]

Pseudocognition wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

There's a difference between making a profit and screwing people over.

This isn't screwing people over, it's offering a bonus to those who intend to pay the full price later which only requires a tiny down payment now that you can cancel at any time.

With many retailers it does not even require a deposit.

How people think this is screwing them over is beyond me.

Modifié par BTCentral, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:54 .

[Revan312]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

Every little thing you allow a corporation to do freely builds up until you won't be able to buy a game without an ID, credit card number, it's restricted to one install on one computer that has to be online at all times and it has half the content it normally would but has a plethora of DLC that will actually fill out the game for only an additional 35 dollars...

Over dramatize more

It's not too far fetched really, look at how quickly DRM and DLC along with pre-order "bonuses" has evolved. I really don't have much trouble seeing what I said becoming reality..

[MyKingdomCold]

I haven't read all of the posts, but stores like Gamestop require only $5 to preorder a game and you can always cancel it later.



So why not put $5 down now and if you don't want it for some reason cancel it?

[Saibh]

Revan312 wrote...

Over dramatize more Saibh, your good at it.. 

Every little thing you allow a corporation to do freely builds up until you won't be able to buy a game without an ID, credit card number, it's restricted to one install on one computer that has to be online at all times and it has half the content it normally would but has a plethora of DLC that will actually fill out the game for only an additional 35 dollars...

Give em an inch and they'll take 3..

I'm over-dramatizing? What?



And, I'm not sure if you realized this, you do need an ID for M-rated games.

Modifié par Saibh, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:54 .

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Pseudocognition wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

There's a difference between making a profit and screwing people over.

This isn't screwing people over, it's offering a bonus to those who intend to pay the full price later which only requires a tiny down payment now that you can cancel at any time.

It's screwing over people who don't pre order it.

[upsettingshorts]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Oh good sir then please enlighten me with your infinite wisdom.

Sure. 

I know next to nothing about how games are made.  I know absolutely nothing about how games are budgeted.  The reason I don't know these things is because I don't work in the industry.  My "wise" position is that I am ignorant.  As a result, I don't tell Bioware in forum posts how they should spend their development budget, because I haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

So unless you do have a clue - and you can explain how and where you gained this knowledge - maybe you shouldn't either. 

"They should spend that DLC budget on the game!" might apply.  Or it might be incoherent.  Or it might not be possible.  Or it might not even work that way at all.  

If your issue is simply one of budgets, if you were offered irrefutable proof that if DLC wasn't produced and released in the way it is now it simply wouldn't exist, would you still have a problem?  If the answer is yes, then your issue is with the nature of DLC in general and your budget argument is just a strawman.  If the answer is no, then you need evidence to actually back up your argument, evidence you haven't presented.  

Just in case it comes up, my comment earlier in the thread that I take Bioware at their word when they describe how DLC works means nothing more or less than that.  I take their word.  They could be fibbing, though I expect if they had a choice between lying and saying nothing, they'd say nothing.  But it's still just belief.  I don't know how they budget DLC either.  And that's why I wouldn't tell them how to spend it.

It's an offer.  Take the offer or don't.  It's not a conspiracy, or the sparks of a revolution, or any other overblown nonsense.  We're talking about an extra companion in a damn videogame that has a potential cost of $7.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

BTCentral wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

There's a difference between making a profit and screwing people over.

This isn't screwing people over, it's offering a bonus to those who intend to pay the full price later which only requires a tiny down payment now that you can cancel at any time.

In many cases it does not even require a downpayment.

How people think this is screwing someone over is beyond me.

Beyond me as well.

I'm just going to go over to gamestop, pay in full, and stop looking in this thread.

[TJPags]

DirtyVagrant wrote...

TJPags wrote...

DirtyVagrant wrote...

And for the record, I wouldn't have a problem with this if there wasn't a time limit on it, akin to Shale or Zaeed. Fine, it encourages you to purchase the game new as opposed to used where the developers do not get the money for their work. But I have to pay extra because I don't pre-order a special edition by January 10th? C'mon, that isn't cool...

I know, right?

How AWFUL that they want you to buy something early rather than late.

I suppose you hate all sales, right?

That isn't the point. It should already be included IN the game. They can develop addition DLC and sell it later all they want, I have qualms with that. But a limited day 1 "DLC"? I stress the limited part.

So it's the free for those who pre-order part?  Because, you know, the DLC is available to everyone.  And I stress everyone.

[Harid]

Gavinthelocust wrote...

Harid wrote...

This argument has gone circular. Bailing out unless addressed.

This is how things usually go here, an argument starts and by the fourth page it's become a flame war with a blend of insane troll logic and extreme ignorance.

Oh, I know.  It's sad, but true.  'Specially anything 'anti-Bioware'.

Modifié par Harid, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:57 .

[Demx]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

Thank god this level of thinking hasn't entered all industries..

"Oh, you want to buy this used car?  Well for 300 more bucks we'll throw in the coffee holders and the radio.., 600 and you'll get the passenger seat!"

Poor analogy. You don't need the DLC to have a full game, you need the seats and stuff to have a full car.

They didn't remove content. You still get the full package.

Honestly you probably don't need a number of characters that are going to be your companion in DA2, but they are still included. There tends to be a feeling that the product you bought is cheapened, because said person didn't go to the ice cream social early for the free extra scoop. And is told to pay the extra cost if he/she wants two scoops, while seeing everyone that got there early walk around with said Sebastian Vael flavor.

Like it has been said before, it is a business and businesses need to make money. I doubt many people put out the $15 for Shale, if they bought the game used. And it didn't seem quite fair to put an expiration date for Shale for those who bought the game new. Since she was intended to be included from the beginning.

However, it seems that Sebastian Vael was planned to be released as an exclusive character. So he should probably be view more like purchasing a DLC campaign then a companion that you thought you should have gotten from the beginning of the game.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Revan312 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

Every little thing you allow a corporation to do freely builds up until you won't be able to buy a game without an ID, credit card number, it's restricted to one install on one computer that has to be online at all times and it has half the content it normally would but has a plethora of DLC that will actually fill out the game for only an additional 35 dollars...

Over dramatize more

It's not too far fetched really, look at how quickly DRM and DLC along with pre-order "bonuses" has evolved. I really don't have much trouble seeing what I said becoming reality..

In South Korea an ID is needed for basically everything online. So yea, it isn't that far fetched.

[Meltemph]

There's a difference between making a profit and screwing people over.

Sounds like you think you deserve the product...

They can't screw you over if they tell you what they are selling before hand. It is not their fault if someone doesn't have the self control to not buy something they will not be happy with.

Modifié par Meltemph, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:57 .

[DirtyVagrant]

TJPags wrote...

DirtyVagrant wrote...

TJPags wrote...

DirtyVagrant wrote...

And for the record, I wouldn't have a problem with this if there wasn't a time limit on it, akin to Shale or Zaeed. Fine, it encourages you to purchase the game new as opposed to used where the developers do not get the money for their work. But I have to pay extra because I don't pre-order a special edition by January 10th? C'mon, that isn't cool...

I know, right?

How AWFUL that they want you to buy something early rather than late.

I suppose you hate all sales, right?

That isn't the point. It should already be included IN the game. They can develop addition DLC and sell it later all they want, I have qualms with that. But a limited day 1 "DLC"? I stress the limited part.

So it's the free for those who pre-order part?  Because, you know, the DLC is available to everyone.  And I stress everyone.

So I have to pre-order when Bioware tells me to? It isn't free to those that don't pre-order before January 10th thats my point.

[bsbcaer]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

There's a difference between making a profit and screwing people over.

This isn't screwing people over, it's offering a bonus to those who intend to pay the full price later which only requires a tiny down payment now that you can cancel at any time.

It's screwing over people who don't pre order it.

Absolutely not...First of all, we're going around in circles again.  What the company is doing is this:

Hey, consumer, we're giving you a choice.  You can choose between preordering our product, and we'll give you this piece of material for free.  If you don't preorder, we will give you the option of buying this piece of material for 7 bucks. 

So, as a consumer, you have to weigh whether you want this product and piece of material

[Big Mabels Diet-Plan]

MyKingdomCold wrote...

I haven't read all of the posts, but stores like Gamestop require only $5 to preorder a game and you can always cancel it later.

So why not put $5 down now and if you don't want it for some reason cancel it?

Because then the onus is upon you to act, to research and maybe cancel the order. You have to double down on a game which you only hope is worth your money and if something else come to light suggesting its not worth it you have to take the time to cancel your order.
Why not just make a great game and then it's indispuitably worth your money and you can buy it day 1 or day 2 or maybe at the weekend and you havent been locked out of any content.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Oh good sir then please enlighten me with your infinite wisdom.

Sure. 

I know next to nothing about how games are made.  I know absolutely nothing about how games are budgeted.  The reason I don't know these things is because I don't work in the industry.  My "wise" position is that I am ignorant.  As a result, I don't tell Bioware in forum posts how they should spend their development budget, because I haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

So unless you do have a clue - and you can explain how and where you gained this knowledge - maybe you shouldn't either. 

"They should spend that DLC budget on the game!" might apply.  Or it might be incoherent.  Or it might not be possible.  Or it might not even work that way at all.  

If your issue is simply one of budgets, if you were offered irrefutable proof that if DLC wasn't produced and released in the way it is now it simply wouldn't exist, would you still have a problem?  If the answer is yes, then your issue is with the nature of DLC in general and your budget argument is just a strawman.  If the answer is no, then you need evidence to actually back up your argument, evidence you haven't presented.  

Just in case it comes up, my comment earlier in the thread that I take Bioware at their word when they describe how DLC works means nothing more or less than that.  I take their word.  They could be fibbing, though I expect if they had a choice between lying and saying nothing, they'd say nothing.  But it's still just belief.  I don't know how they budget DLC either.  And that's why I wouldn't tell them how to spend it.

It's an offer.  Take the offer or don't.  It's not a conspiracy, or the sparks of a revolution, or any other overblown nonsense.  We're talking about an extra companion in a damn videogame that has a potential cost of $7.

I'm glad you take the industry so lightly. Some of us are very passionate about video games, and fear for the direction they are heading. Your stance is that your ignorant, then educate yourself and come to a conclusion.  Otherwise, stay out of the conversation. Your input is again, unnecessary.