298 réponses à ce sujet

[Harid]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

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.

I agree with this.  It's kinda hard to take Bioware for it's face argument of dlc budgets when this was finished before they finished the game.  It should then. . .be included in the damn game.

[Meltemph]

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.

But the idea that it should be a one way thing, to me is just as bad. The idea that while an artist owes the consumer the consumer doesn't owe the artist anything(or more specifically the consumer only owes what the consumer THINKS, the artist deserves) is just as bad if not worse.

Modifié par Meltemph, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:42 .

[upsettingshorts]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

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.

And I assume you know this based on your significant experience with game development?  I bet you could tell those Bioware people a thing or two about how to make games.

Actually, this is a waste of time.  Back to football.

[Harid]

Meltemph 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.

But the idea that it should be a one way thing, to me is just as bad. The idea that while an artist owes the consumer the consumer doesn't owe the artist anything(or more specifically the consumer only owes what the consumer THINKS, the artist deserves).

Where is this argument coming from.  We buy their product.  That's as far as we owe them.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Saibh wrote...

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.

The problem is that the large majority of our population is ignorant to the workings behind the scenes. They'll sit in their living rooms and complain about **** like this, but they never do anything about it. It's as big a problem with the corporations as it is with the american public being complacent. Thus my longing for a revolution.

[BTCentral]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

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.

Because, if you hadn't noticed - that's the way it works for EA games now. It's all part of the marketing strategy.
It's one way of motivating people to pre-order, and potentially getting extra money from those that don't.

If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. You can b***h and moan all you like, it won't make any difference.

Next question?

Modifié par BTCentral, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:45 .

[bsbcaer]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

Removing content is like what they did for Mafia II; they removed content and then sold it later as DLC. 

[Ryzaki]

filaminstrel wrote...
Oh, I thought the issue was "paying to get the game's ending", not it being exclusive to consoles.

Witchhunt was a steaming pile of crap that I like to pretend didn't exist and Awakening was a huge retcon that I didnt like for most of my Wardens.

If they'd been decent I might actually care about them but DAO has a finialized ending without it.

[Meltemph]

Where is this argument coming from. We buy their product. That's as far as we owe them.

And they create and sell the product, that is far as the owe you. If you are going to follow that line of thinking(which I agree with) then you need to follow its logical conclusion. To put stipulations on what consumers owe producers and producers owe consumers is silly. My point is if you have that philosophy that producers owe you to deal in a certain way, then the opposite should be true.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

BTCentral wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

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.

Because, if you hadn't noticed - that's the way it works for EA games now.
It's a way of motivating people to pre-order, and getting extra money from those that don't.

If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.

Next question?

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

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

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.

And I assume you know this based on your significant experience with game development?  I bet you could tell those Bioware people a thing or two about how to make games.

Actually, this is a waste of time.  Back to football.

Your post was both pointless and unnecessary. 

Modifié par TonyTheBossDanza123, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:45 .

[TJPags]

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?

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

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. I would not involve myself in a project without payment unless that project had a huge chance of success and would have more paid work for me later.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:51 .

[Sejborg]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Do you agree that this preorder deal is different than The Stone Prisoner deal?

while project 10 dollar is still active until the end of this fiscal year (march 31st), i'd say no because i believe it will be the same deal.

I'm sorry. I must be dumb or something. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

Why are they marketing it this way, if it is going to be the same deal? They could just make The Stone Prisoner deal again, but this time around just be calling it: Sebastian the Prince. And then make it free for everybody who buys the game new. 

to get people to pre-order?

shale was marketed the same way for the collector's edition before she was announced as day one dlc i believe.

I did not know that. If it turns out to be the exact same deal, where Sebastian then is included in any new purchase then it is fine with me. 

[Big Mabels Diet-Plan]

Meltemph 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.

But the idea that it should be a one way thing, to me is just as bad. The idea that while an artist owes the consumer the consumer doesn't owe the artist anything(or more specifically the consumer only owes what the consumer THINKS, the artist deserves) is just as bad if not worse.

Yes, I agree that the artist deserves and needs recompense for his or her work which is why I abhor piracy. But surely a respecful middle ground between buyer and seller is the best solution. I've bought a lot of BioWares games and happily supported the company because I enjoyed their work but this latest move is ill judged and offensive.

[BTCentral]

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!

Modifié par BTCentral, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:49 .

[bsbcaer]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

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.

Because you have to plan ahead of time and if your plan involves any DLC, not a bad idea to set a budget before the game is released so that you can keep feeding the beast rather than have it go hungry and move on to another game...

[Revan312]

Saibh wrote...
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.

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..

[upsettingshorts]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Your post was both pointless and unnecessary.

Oh, there was a point.  You just missed it.  Not surprising, given your following arguments.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Lady Marlen wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...


I can't wait for the next revolution, it is seriously needed.

more like nuclear apocalypse 


dont want to get my hopes up too much , but girl can dream,right? 


on topic: you are all crazy people , if it's not Tali's bleeding vagina, then it's incest, if not .. well.. bashing on devs and other silly treads XD


buy it or don't , who gives a ****, grow a pair and deal with it .
...

I'd prefer Zombies. I'd zip right to Activision headquarters and personally blow the head off zombie Bobby Kotick. And if he wasn't a zombie, well I'd just have to make sure: by blowing his head off.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Your post was both pointless and unnecessary.

Oh, there was a point.  You just missed it.  Not surprising, given your following arguments.

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

[Meltemph]

But surely a respecful middle ground between buyer and seller is the best solution. I've bought a lot of BioWares games and happily supported the company because I enjoyed their work but this latest move is ill judged and offensive.

I know VERY few respectful consumers(without something to gain) and I know VERY few respectful producers(without something to gain). You tell me what came 1st? The chicken or the egg?

[Harid]

This argument has gone circular. Bailing out unless addressed.