345 réponses à ce sujet

[sevalaricgirl]

Finis Valorum wrote...

The signature edition is most likely going to be a major disappointment for me, some goodies and a completely redundant character.

Congratulations Bioware, EA marketing department, you've suckered me into it this time, don't expect it to happen twice from now on I'll just purchase either the regular edition or a collectors edition that includes at least some physical goodies.

So cancel it.  There's nothing to stop you.

[KillerYeh]

I preodered - and I don't think it's a bad idea!!!!!

[the_one_54321]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Was Kasumi a bad deal for gamers?

I would argue that yes, she was. I would have been happier to have paid $60-$70 for ME2 and gotten all the content they intended to eventually be part of the game. This partioning of extra characters into extra bits of DLC for extra money strikes me as incredibly bad for the gamer/consumer, especialy based on how successful it seems to have been.

[the_one_54321]

Black_Warden wrote...
While i view it as the same deal gamers have been getting (specifically paying $5-$10 for an additional character), while acting as a reward for a group who have shown they're faith in the devs.

agree to disagree, again?

Well, actually I agree with you. I also think it is the same deal. I just think it's a very bad deal.

[Phoenixblight]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Was Kasumi a bad deal for gamers?

I would argue that yes, she was. I would have been happier to have paid $60-$70 for ME2 and gotten all the content they intended to eventually be part of the game. This partioning of extra characters into extra bits of DLC for extra money strikes me as incredibly bad for the gamer/consumer, especialy based on how successful it seems to have been.

You obviously don't understand how DLC works. Without DLC characters like SHale, Zaeed, Kasumi would be cut to be never seen ever again. They are on a different time table and are not "cut" to be a simple cash grab . They are however content that were not on par with the game at the time of content lock and so they were removed from the core game. So without DLC you would never know there was supposed to be Shale, Zaeed, Kasumi, Vael unless Bioware mentioned it. 

[Moondoggie]

I think i've come to the conclusion that people on here will complain about everything. I don't see what the problem with the SE is i figure i'm going to buy the game anyways on release day so why not pre order it and get a few extra bits and a DLC character and a soundtrack with it. I'll get what i was going to get anyway with some little extras thrown in. No point in complaining about nothing. It's not like anyone forced people to pre order the SE

[Cloaking_Thane]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Was Kasumi a bad deal for gamers?

I would argue that yes, she was. I would have been happier to have paid $60-$70 for ME2 and gotten all the content they intended to eventually be part of the game. This partioning of extra characters into extra bits of DLC for extra money strikes me as incredibly bad for the gamer/consumer, especialy based on how successful it seems to have been.

But she wasnt finished close to release date (or "gold" deadline), therefore we would not have seen her at all.

so the alternative choice it to wait possibly serveral more months.....at some point publisher/ producers and companies have to make a choice....

Moreover, in the end you decide is the $7 worth the character who is non essential to the completion of the game?

No one is forcing you to buy the char at that price point, or ever

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 16 février 2011 - 06:33 .

[Black_Warden]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Was Kasumi a bad deal for gamers?

I would argue that yes, she was. I would have been happier to have paid $60-$70 for ME2 and gotten all the content they intended to eventually be part of the game. This partioning of extra characters into extra bits of DLC for extra money strikes me as incredibly bad for the gamer/consumer, especialy based on how successful it seems to have been.

Ahhhhh ok i didn't realize that was what you were arguing. You're anti DLC in general then?

See, personally, i'd have not wanted them to release all the content they eventually intended to make with the original game, as that would have delayed the game indefinitely.

Using your ME2 example, and kasumi. Let's assume they conceptuallized Kasumi 1 week before release. Should they have delayed the game for upwards of 8 months to accomodate her inclusion? (i'm guessing on that time period, as game discs have to have their content finalized roughly that far in advance, nothing new may be added to them after that point.) or would you have preffered they say "screw it" and toss the kasumi concept in the trash? Becuase without DLC, those are the only two options.

relating it to DA2, if the concept of prince Vael came up after the dev team had finalized the disc, they'd have to delay the game by months to get him on there.

Modifié par Black_Warden, 16 février 2011 - 06:35 .

[Lord Atlia]

I did find the signature edition to be an odd marketing tool. It was probably a resource for the marketing team to view the early hype for the game. I'd would rather they went the Atlus route and included a physical soundtrack and art book, my two favorite limited edition/pre-order incentives by a large margin, but you can't really complain about free stuff. The fact they did not include Steam in the promotion baffles me as they are the dominant distributor for digital games, it is like them not having the promotion with Gamestop.

[g-vapen]

idk. This sounds like an excellent idea. For scalpers at least.

Modifié par g-vapen, 16 février 2011 - 06:40 .

[sevalaricgirl]

Merchant2006 wrote...

And yes, it's a shame there is no 'Digital Signature Edition' on Steam but I think this was a choice of EA/BW to have something Limited up for sale via retail copies only.

EAstore.com had Digital Signature Edition.  I pre-ordered it.  I buy many of my EA games from EA download.

[Pixieking]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Black_Warden wrote...
What, in regards to the Exiled Prince DLC, do you feel specifically mislead about?

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
What about it? That it was a mystery until Jan 7?

I believe that the practice/development/distribution of it in general is a very bad deal for gamers. I don't mind paying for content. Heck I want to pay for content, because I want to the developers of good games to be successful and keep making good games. But I feel very strongly that this entire setup is very bad for gamers as consumers. However, it is/was being pushed as a "bonus." I think that those who bought/buy into the whole "bonus" thing were fooled by the language/tone of the advertisement.

It was a bonus to SE players as they get it for "free", it is further a bonus because it was not completed in time to go on a disc (DLC).

It is not a bonus to Day 1 purchasers and thereafter because its market value is $7

DA2 went gold last week. Can you prove that it wasn't produced in time to go on the disc? Any source for that?

Note: Not being argumentative, but that's one of the reasons why so many people are anti-DLC - they see it as material that could've easily gone into the game, but was specifically excised so the publisher could charge for it. Now, yes, in some cases the DLC is bonus material that wouldn't otherwise be produced (or would be left on the cutting room floor. Again, Deus Ex 3 is a good example). But , let's face it, the disc went to press last week, and the DLC would have to be finished by Gold status to ensure it could be tested alongside the main game to check for bugs. Unless there's going to be a 0-Day patch alongside the DLC? Which strikes me as very unprofessional, though possible with the way PC games are developed nowadays.

[Phoenixblight]

Emoking wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Black_Warden wrote...
What, in regards to the Exiled Prince DLC, do you feel specifically mislead about?

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
What about it? That it was a mystery until Jan 7?

I believe that the practice/development/distribution of it in general is a very bad deal for gamers. I don't mind paying for content. Heck I want to pay for content, because I want to the developers of good games to be successful and keep making good games. But I feel very strongly that this entire setup is very bad for gamers as consumers. However, it is/was being pushed as a "bonus." I think that those who bought/buy into the whole "bonus" thing were fooled by the language/tone of the advertisement.

It was a bonus to SE players as they get it for "free", it is further a bonus because it was not completed in time to go on a disc (DLC).

It is not a bonus to Day 1 purchasers and thereafter because its market value is $7

DA2 went gold last week. Can you prove that it wasn't produced in time to go on the disc? Any source for that?

Note: Not being argumentative, but that's one of the reasons why so many people are anti-DLC - they see it as material that could've easily gone into the game, but was specifically excised so the publisher could charge for it. Now, yes, in some cases the DLC is bonus material that wouldn't otherwise be produced (or would be left on the cutting room floor. Again, Deus Ex 3 is a good example). But , let's face it, the disc went to press last week, and the DLC would have to be finished by Gold status to ensure it could be tested alongside the main game to check for bugs. Unless there's going to be a 0-Day patch alongside the DLC? Which strikes me as very unprofessional, though possible with the way PC games are developed nowadays.

THere is a content lock on what will be on the actual game usually months prior to the release. That time left is left for debugging, tweaking and finalizing what is in the game. After that point you can't add anyting in. 

Modifié par Phoenixblight, 16 février 2011 - 06:43 .

[Black_Warden]

Lord Atlia wrote...

I did find the signature edition to be an odd marketing tool. It was probably a resource for the marketing team to view the early hype for the game. I'd would rather they went the Atlus route and included a physical soundtrack and art book, my two favorite limited edition/pre-order incentives by a large margin, but you can't really complain about free stuff. The fact they did not include Steam in the promotion baffles me as they are the dominant distributor for digital games, it is like them not having the promotion with Gamestop.

My understanding of the Steam issue is that Steam and Bioware/EA simply weren't able to finalize a distribution agreement in time for the January 11th deadline.

[Black_Warden]

Emoking wrote...

DA2 went gold last week. Can you prove that it wasn't produced in time to go on the disc? Any source for that?

Note: Not being argumentative, but that's one of the reasons why so many people are anti-DLC - they see it as material that could've easily gone into the game, but was specifically excised so the publisher could charge for it. Now, yes, in some cases the DLC is bonus material that wouldn't otherwise be produced (or would be left on the cutting room floor. Again, Deus Ex 3 is a good example). But , let's face it, the disc went to press last week, and the DLC would have to be finished by Gold status to ensure it could be tested alongside the main game to check for bugs. Unless there's going to be a 0-Day patch alongside the DLC? Which strikes me as very unprofessional, though possible with the way PC games are developed nowadays.

Gold means it's ready to be shipped.
the actual content lock on the CDs is 6-8 months prior to release, nothing new may be added to the disc after that point.

[Pixieking]

Mmmm... Fair fair. Learn something new everyday.

[TheMadCat]

Brilliant marketing idea actually, they managed to round up a large number of pre-orders in a time frame when games usually don't see a whole lot of pre-orders. Add that on top of the time where pre-orders are naturally stronger in the weeks leading up to the game (Doubly so seeing as pre-ordering wasn't an option on Steam, arguably the largest retailer next to Gamestop) and you wind up with a very large number. Since pre-orders are one of the bigger factors in determining how many licenses/copies a retailer initially buys, it helped inflate the bubble.

So yeah, pretty clever move.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 16 février 2011 - 06:54 .

[the_one_54321]

Black_Warden wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Was Kasumi a bad deal for gamers?

I would argue that yes, she was. I would have been happier to have paid $60-$70 for ME2 and gotten all the content they intended to eventually be part of the game. This partioning of extra characters into extra bits of DLC for extra money strikes me as incredibly bad for the gamer/consumer, especialy based on how successful it seems to have been.

Ahhhhh ok i didn't realize that was what you were arguing. You're anti DLC in general then?

See, personally, i'd have not wanted them to release all the content they eventually intended to make with the original game, as that would have delayed the game indefinitely.

Using your ME2 example, and kasumi. Let's assume they conceptuallized Kasumi 1 week before release. Should they have delayed the game for upwards of 8 months to accomodate her inclusion? (i'm guessing on that time period, as game discs have to have their content finalized roughly that far in advance, nothing new may be added to them after that point.) or would you have preffered they say "screw it" and toss the kasumi concept in the trash? Becuase without DLC, those are the only two options.

relating it to DA2, if the concept of prince Vael came up after the dev team had finalized the disc, they'd have to delay the game by months to get him on there.

It becomes a problem when resources are set asside specifically to create content that is not intended to be part of the game but sold separately.

[Black_Warden]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It becomes a problem when resources are set asside specifically to create content that is not intended to be part of the game but sold separately.

if it can be proved that content was set aside instead of not made in time to make content lock (or made after release), then i'd agree with you in that case.

[the_one_54321]

Black_Warden wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
It becomes a problem when resources are set asside specifically to create content that is not intended to be part of the game but sold separately.

if it can be proved that content was set aside instead of not made in time to make content lock (or made after release), then i'd agree with you in that case.

You know a lot of people defend the prices of DLC by saying that developers have separeate departments to make it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that some BioWare devs have specifically said that there is a seperate department that is dedicated to making seperate DLC content.

[Cloaking_Thane]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Black_Warden wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Was Kasumi a bad deal for gamers?

I would argue that yes, she was. I would have been happier to have paid $60-$70 for ME2 and gotten all the content they intended to eventually be part of the game. This partioning of extra characters into extra bits of DLC for extra money strikes me as incredibly bad for the gamer/consumer, especialy based on how successful it seems to have been.

Ahhhhh ok i didn't realize that was what you were arguing. You're anti DLC in general then?

See, personally, i'd have not wanted them to release all the content they eventually intended to make with the original game, as that would have delayed the game indefinitely.

Using your ME2 example, and kasumi. Let's assume they conceptuallized Kasumi 1 week before release. Should they have delayed the game for upwards of 8 months to accomodate her inclusion? (i'm guessing on that time period, as game discs have to have their content finalized roughly that far in advance, nothing new may be added to them after that point.) or would you have preffered they say "screw it" and toss the kasumi concept in the trash? Becuase without DLC, those are the only two options.

relating it to DA2, if the concept of prince Vael came up after the dev team had finalized the disc, they'd have to delay the game by months to get him on there.

It becomes a problem when resources are set asside specifically to create content that is not intended to be part of the game but sold separately.

From devs mouths....most DLC happens after the game is finished and people are effectively twiddling thumbs. you could pretend that's diverging resources, but in reality they get their paycheck either way.

There is a fundamental assumption in your argument that you need this dlc to play the game or its somehow terrible without it, or that somehow people etc are jipped. It's all quite optional and not necessary. More to the point is your complete glossing over of how for profit corps work, and disregard for deadlines, budgets, creative decisions, Q&A, maintenence of standards etc etc

DLC has kept games like ME, Dragon Age, Oblivion, ME2, Fallout 3, etc expand their shelf life and keep them and bioware in the consumer consciene for far longer than, oh lets say two worlds, or a dynasty warriors game, or *insert obscure title, from company x*.

This is largely a circular conversation where you say something broad and general where some people might say yea that right, but when you dissect it further, it rings empty.

Fundamentally how EA bioware use their resources re:dlc isnt any concern of yours, you may have an opinion, but their decision to use their own resources certain isnt a "problem", you have complete freedom how to spend your dollars i.e dont like DLC dont buy DLC,

The decision as to whether or not it is essential to the main game has already been made, and not by you or even popular demand

[Black_Warden]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Black_Warden wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
It becomes a problem when resources are set asside specifically to create content that is not intended to be part of the game but sold separately.

if it can be proved that content was set aside instead of not made in time to make content lock (or made after release), then i'd agree with you in that case.

You know a lot of people defend the prices of DLC by saying that developers have separeate departments to make it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that some BioWare devs have specifically said that there is a seperate department that is dedicated to making seperate DLC content.

this was true for DAO, but i seem to remember reading that there is no seperate dev team for DA2 DLC. i can't remember what dev i saw say that or where, so take it with a grain of salt

Edit: The DA:O DLC team, i believe, began their work after content lock as well, but had time to finish more stuff due to the delays to that game.

Modifié par Black_Warden, 16 février 2011 - 07:41 .

[the_one_54321]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
From devs mouths....most DLC happens after the game is finished and people are effectively twiddling thumbs. you could pretend that's diverging resources, but in reality they get their paycheck either way.

You can't stand on this when the example I gave you when asked was Vael. He is shipping with the game on day 1.

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
There is a fundamental assumption in your argument that you need this dlc to play the game or its somehow terrible without it, or that somehow people etc are jipped.

I never made any such assumption. ME2 was still good and DA:O was still fantastic and I never downloaded a single add-on from BioWare.

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
DLC has kept games like ME, Dragon Age, Oblivion, ME2, Fallout 3, etc expand their shelf life and keep them and bioware in the consumer consciene for far longer than, oh lets say two worlds, or a dynasty warriors game, or *insert obscure title, from company x*.

Not my concern. I am the consumer, not the producer.

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
This is largely a circular conversation where you say something broad and general where some people might say yea that right, but when you dissect it further, it rings empty.

Hardly. And if you're going to claim the argument is circular I'll ask you to outline where it flows back into its beginning.

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
Fundamentally how EA bioware use their resources re:dlc isnt any concern of yours, you may have an opinion, but their decision to use their own resources certain isnt a "problem", you have complete freedom how to spend your dollars i.e dont like DLC dont buy DLC,

Totally wrong. How they develop and then sell the game is completely my concern. Because I'm the one that's paying the bill for it. I, and everyone else that buys the games. It's our money. And furthermore, what all of you decide about it is also my concern because it affects how they develop and sell the game in the future, which affects the options I have for buying games in the future. It very much behoves me to talk about this as much as possible.

edit:
Before you point out how I first said not my concern and then said it was my concern, allow me to elaborate. How the company keeps itself in the public eye is not my concern. How the company packages and sells its games is my concern.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 16 février 2011 - 07:42 .

[the_one_54321]

Black_Warden wrote...
this was true for DAO, but i seem to remember reading that there is no seperate dev team for DA2 DLC. i can't remember what dev i saw say that or where, so take it with a grain of salt

Really? I don't recall anything like that...
And the existence of Vael and the Black Emporium would suggest otherwise. But that's just speculation, really.

[Black_Warden]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...
From devs mouths....most DLC happens after the game is finished and people are effectively twiddling thumbs. you could pretend that's diverging resources, but in reality they get their paycheck either way.

You can't stand on this when the example I gave you when asked was Vael. He is shipping with the game on day 1.

In context, what the dev (i believe it was Gaider) was saying was that after content lock (6-8 months before release) there are certain parts of the dev team that no longer need to work on that game, and can move on (to DLC, or another project)

the_one_54321 wrote...

Black_Warden wrote...
this was true for DAO, but i seem to remember reading that there is no seperate dev team for DA2 DLC. i can't remember what dev i saw say that or where, so take it with a grain of salt

Really? I don't recall anything like that...
And the existence of Vael and the Black Emporium would suggest otherwise. But that's just speculation, really.

This ties into what i just said. From a dev perspective, the game is "done" once the cd content is locked. most will move on to their next project, be it a new game or DLC, while some will be fixing bugs found by the QA team, and doing any other general polishing.

there is an overlap, for sure, as some DLC is being made before the game is released, but it is not content that can be added to the main game without delaying it and restarting the entire 6-8 month QA process.