298 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyVagrant]

AuraofMana wrote...

DirtyVagrant wrote...

Arguably they have removed content and set it aside to sell it off as DLC. I can understand selling DLC after the release date, but on day one? I'm not cool with that. It's certainly an unfortunate that people accept this so readily, I suppose if you were already planning to preorder the game then it doesn't matter to you, but slapping a timelimit on the offer to get it "free" is lame.

Wrong, not everything they make during development is considered content. You really don't understand how a business work.

So... you don't consider a full-fledged party member with missions as "content"?

[Dave of Canada]

DirtyVagrant wrote...

Arguably they have removed content and set it aside to sell it off as DLC.

There's a difference between removing content and adding it side by side. Removing content would be like if it was on the disc or impacted the game significally with it's removal, similar to Resident Evil 5's multiplayer that was already created and on the CD but you had to pay to unlock it.

In this sense, does The Stone Prisoner or Zaeed hurt the storyline or gameplay of DA:O and ME2? It does not, it's a side story that can slip into the game and fit in. You don't lose anything by not having them in the group, it's bonus. It's not like they cut away the Circle tower or Orzammar and sold it on the same day and you can't get the full game without it.

To continue with the (poor) used car analogy, you purchase a new car and they offer you some spinners that you can buy seperately. You're not forced to buy it, you have a perfectly working car. If the company did an offer where they gave free spinners to the early adopters, it doesn't entitle you to the spinners when you buy the car later.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:33 .

[Saibh]

DirtyVagrant wrote...

Arguably they have removed content and set it aside to sell it off as DLC. I can understand selling DLC after the release date, but on day one? I'm not cool with that. It's certainly an unfortunate that people accept this so readily, I suppose if you were already planning to preorder the game then it doesn't matter to you, but slapping a timelimit on the offer to get it "free" is lame.

DLC is made on a separate budget with a separate team. If the UN declared embargos upon all DLC-creating countries, Sebastian, Shale, Kasumi, or Zaeed would not exist.

Think about all the times a companion spoke to an NPC or banters that concerned them, or times they spoke to another companion. Think about all the references made to that companion.

If DLC was not planned to be inside the game, none of that would happen. Your companion would be a cardboard cut-out for all it was worth. BioWare isn't going to hire back all those actors for a few lines of dialogue. But, when planned, your companion you paid seven or ten or fifteen dollars for, will interact as a full member, just like you paid for.

[slimgrin]

DaewaNya wrote...

We are customers, they are sellers. Gaming companies make offers, you like it, then buy it, you don't, then don't buy. They don't owe you anything.

My point was, they had a better offer before with ME2. But you're right, they don't owe me anything. Great business philosophy.

[Wozearly]

As a personal preference, I dislike the small-scale DLC model. Particularly because as someone who tends to be an early adopter its a mild wind-up when content is added that would have been more interesting *had it been available first time round*.

Return to Ostagar is a case in point. Just didn't feel the same going back there after you'd already slain the Archdemon.

Generally speaking I don't pre-order games and I try my damndest to avoid titles using a paid DLC model.

However, DA:2 is one of the only games I've preordered in several years. Guess it says something pretty impressive about Bioware that they can get me to willingly violate both principles in one fell swoop.

[Thetribeman]

TripedWire wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

To get more money maybe?

We have a winner!

To get more money. The aim of every creative individual/team surely!

Yes. So they can afford to keep being creative in ways that we can then stick in our consoles/PCs and enjoy.

Nope. Van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime and were it not for the the financial support of his brother would have died in poverty.

Yes it is fair to compare a dead Painter to a COMPANY in the 21st century.

[Ryzaki]

Yes because Shale was made on a seperate budget.

[Big Mabels Diet-Plan]

Ryzaki wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

DirtyVagrant wrote...

"Pre-order Dragon Age 3 signature edition by so-and-so date and get the ending free! Otherwise pay $n to access ending content and complete your game!"

An extreme example, but still...

Not as extreme as you think. This was done on a PC release of Prince of Persia (forget which one) where you literally had to pay to get the games ending. lol

*jaw hits floor* 

WAT

http://news.bigdownload.com/2009/02/02/ubisoft-no-prince-of-persia-pc-dlc-for-you/

If you enjoyed the PC version of Ubisoft's recent revamp of Prince of Persia,
get ready for some bad news. While the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the
action-adventure game will be getting a downloadable expansion pack
that will continue the game's storyline, PC owners won't get that
opportunity.

Big Download emailed Ubisoft last month to inquire
if the announced console DLC would also show up on the PC. We never
received a response from the publisher. However, In a post on Ubisoft's
message boards their community manager has posted up this message:
"Unfortunately for business reasons we won't be seeing any PoP
DLC appear. Sorry guys!" In the meantime, the publisher will release
this mini-expansion, which has the Prince and his sidekick Elika face off against a new enemy called the Shapshifter, for the Xbox 360 and PS3 on Feb. 26.

[Harid]

Saibh wrote...

Harid wrote...

This isn't really an argument I can agree with.

Most people don't complain about the Stone Prisoner.  You bought the game new, you got DLC.  Same applies the Cerberus Network.  People understood they were buying the game,a nd getting a reward to help curb piracy.

Right, because it's free stuff available to a wider audience. Free stuff that you are not promised and are not necessary and are treats and incentives. But BioWare has added an extra stipulation: yes, now more people are left out, but they are left out of something that was never promised to them. That they don't need. I'm not saying this pre-order method is better, but it's not stealing and it's not "withholding" content.

This game has been contentious from the start, since the first "Press a Button, something awesome happens" bad advertising came out for the game.  Everyone also knows that Bioware tends to make DLC gear the best gear in the game.  (See Mass Effect, see DA:O)

Because you have to buy it. In this instance, you don't. If you pre-order. That's the incentive. Who would buy DLC that was crappier than the stuff you get in the game? Why would anyone, except anal-retentive completionists?

Thus, people who want to wait and see are 'forced' with this hard sell to pre order the game, and people don't like that, thus the complaints.

Right, I agree (with the theory, not the tone ). But I don't think they have the right to complain. The privilege, being a free country and all, but there's no promise, no one is being stolen from, no one is losing anything. They're just not gaining a bonus.

I don't see it as me getting something free, but rather that is is something tacked on to get people who wanted to wait to buy to see if the changes they made to DA:2 will result in critical acclaim.  I kind of see it as a lack of faith in the final product from Bioware.  But like I said, I'm a cynic.

Pre-order incentives are pretty common. Most companies are fearful their product will not be met with the success they want. Some fantastic games--Shadow of the Colossus, Beyond Good and Evil, Psychonauts--never didn't well commercially. This is a precaution against that.

This isn't protection from piracy...

Shale didn't protect them from pirates. You can pirate DLC. Anyone who pirated the game would know this. It was an incentive to get people to buy it at full-price, instead of waiting.

Harder to pirate dlc on consoles. . .I don't really care about the wild wild west that PC gaming is when it comes to that argument.

A piece of gear that most retailers gave to you for buying the game new and walking into the store is quite a bit different than an entire character.  I don't think people would be complaining this vehemently if it was a Sword or an Axe or Ring something.

As for the dlc equipment being better than in game equipment, see. . .something like the blades in Infamous.  They were good, but they didn't fix melee in that game, nor did they blow away natural weapons away.  What Bioware does is more akin to like if you got the Shield or Thunder Storm ability from DLC. . .I don't believe dlc gear should be worn at the end of the game, like most gear Bioware makes DLC.  Because then, you are strictly losing something there.

The way they are handling Sebastian is not like most companies treat day 1 dlc.  That's what is causing the issue and the source of most complaints I have read.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Saibh wrote...

DirtyVagrant wrote...

Arguably they have removed content and set it aside to sell it off as DLC. I can understand selling DLC after the release date, but on day one? I'm not cool with that. It's certainly an unfortunate that people accept this so readily, I suppose if you were already planning to preorder the game then it doesn't matter to you, but slapping a timelimit on the offer to get it "free" is lame.

DLC is made on a separate budget with a separate team. If the UN declared embargos upon all DLC-creating countries, Sebastian, Shale, Kasumi, or Zaeed would not exist.

Think about all the times a companion spoke to an NPC or banters that concerned them, or times they spoke to another companion. Think about all the references made to that companion.

If DLC was not planned to be inside the game, none of that would happen. Your companion would be a cardboard cut-out for all it was worth. BioWare isn't going to hire back all those actors for a few lines of dialogue. But, when planned, your companion you paid seven or ten or fifteen dollars for, will interact as a full member, just like you paid for.

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.

[Reaverwind]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

It seems pretty obnoxious. I'd like to see people reject this kind of tactic en masse for being cynical and manipulative. I'm concerned that if successfull, other developers will follow suit and as consumers we get to look forward to being treated with less and less respect and the idea of an honest exchange of money for demonstarble goods gets eroded.

Welcome to the 21st century, where no longer do the consumers have power. Or more correctly, no longer do we use our power. Corporations do whatever they want and we just eat it up.

BINGO! Someone finally gets it.

[Ryzaki]

@TripedWire:



GAH DAMN YOU UBISOFT *rages*

[Big Mabels Diet-Plan]

Thetribeman wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

To get more money maybe?

We have a winner!

To get more money. The aim of every creative individual/team surely!

Yes. So they can afford to keep being creative in ways that we can then stick in our consoles/PCs and enjoy.

Nope. Van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime and were it not for the the financial support of his brother would have died in poverty.

Yes it is fair to compare a dead Painter to a COMPANY in the 21st century.

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.

[The Big Nothing]

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.

A better analogy would be: "Oh, you want a brand new car? Well, if you buy this one right now we'll throw in a spoiler and some fuzzy dice. Buy later or used and you have to pay for both. "

[TJPags]

Apparently, for some people, any incentive to purchase something is evil.

Black Friday sales - nope, shouldn't do that, I should get the sale price any time I want.

Holiday sales (pick your holiday) - nope, no can do - I should either pay that price at all times, or never.

Is free shipping okay?  Because, you know, some companies charge for that.  Those that don't must be evil, right?  Or are they only evil if they offer free shipping before December 1?  What about people who offer free standard shipping, but charge you for next day delivery?

Ever go to a bar when they offer 2 for 1 drinks?  Terrible business practice, isn't it?  How dare they only do that on Tuesday, and not on Saturday night!!!!!

Next time a casino comps me a room or a meal, I'm calling the Better Business Bureau.  How DARE they offer me an incentive to stay another day!!!!!!!!!

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

TripedWire wrote...

Thetribeman wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

TripedWire wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

To get more money maybe?

We have a winner!

To get more money. The aim of every creative individual/team surely!

Yes. So they can afford to keep being creative in ways that we can then stick in our consoles/PCs and enjoy.

Nope. Van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime and were it not for the the financial support of his brother would have died in poverty.

Yes it is fair to compare a dead Painter to a COMPANY in the 21st century.

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.

[bsbcaer]

Alright, just to address this Shale vs. Seb argument for a second. Shale was content that was originally created to be part of the game. The decision was made to remove the Shale content for a number of reasons (including inability to go through doorways, if I remember correctly). Then, DA:O was delayed from its original release date, giving the development team more time to work out the issues with Shale and get her back into the game. Seb was NOT created to be part of the game, he was created out of the DLC budget and designed as an ADD-ON. If there were no DLC budget for DA2, then Seb would not have been created at all

[Saibh]

Reaverwind wrote...

BINGO! Someone finally gets it.

They also hire scary men in trenchcoats to hold guns to your heads and demand you pre-order now.

No? That didn't happen to you? Someone ought to approach the President and tell him: We're being offered free deals and we don't like it.

Modifié par Saibh, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:38 .

[Cicero.me]

DirtyVagrant wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

Arguably they have removed content and set it aside to sell it off as DLC. I can understand selling DLC after the release date, but on day one? I'm not cool with that. It's certainly an unfortunate that people accept this so readily, I suppose if you were already planning to preorder the game then it doesn't matter to you, but slapping a timelimit on the offer to get it "free" is lame.

Then by your definition I can argue that they haven't. Please take a step back and think to yourself was Shale really integral to the game? I played DA Origins at a friends when it first came out, and used shale albeit briefly. Then I much later bought the game used, therefore Shale was not meant for me to play with. Did I feel left out? Not really. Cliche phrases time! Diferent strokes for different folks.

Oh and whats unfortunate about people being indifferent? Are you implying that its sad that people do not feel that their being cheated too. Is it unfortuneate that people have free will and can decide whether or not  something is good for them? If so then the addenddum that misery loves company rings true yet again.

Modifié par Cicero.me, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:41 .

[Meltemph]

But you're right, they don't owe me anything. Great business philosophy.

Whether that is their "business philosophy" is completely besides the point. The point is that consumers shouldn't feel like people(designers/producers) owe them anything(in real terms). Now if you want companies to feel they owe you, when they are selling you products, that is your own personal decisions, but they don't in the scope of things, "owe" you.

[DirtyVagrant]

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...

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

bsbcaer wrote...

Alright, just to address this Shale vs. Seb argument for a second. Shale was content that was originally created to be part of the game. The decision was made to remove the Shale content for a number of reasons (including inability to go through doorways, if I remember correctly). Then, DA:O was delayed from its original release date, giving the development team more time to work out the issues with Shale and get her back into the game. Seb was NOT created to be part of the game, he was created out of the DLC budget and designed as an ADD-ON. If there were no DLC budget for DA2, then Seb would not have been created at all

Why in gods name is their a DLC budget that early anyway? See here's the problem. That money should go to improving the game in the first place. Any DLC budget should be ordered AFTER the game goes gold.

[Ryzaki]

Well know Shale was intergral the same way Sten, Leliana or even Zevran weren't. They were still companions.

[Ryzaki]

filaminstrel wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

@TripedWire:

GAH DAMN YOU UBISOFT *rages*

It doesn't sound much different than Witch Hunt or Awakening in function...

If WH was exclusive to just consoles I'd be cursing BW right now too!