339 réponses à ce sujet

[ColdbringeR]

Tleining wrote...

ColdbringeR wrote...

My belief is that EA/Bioware develop their games at this point with DLC planned from the start, but my belief doesn't matter. If some team members are finished before others, then they could be put to work polishing other aspects of the game, adding additional bits of content to areas that already exist, working on a sequel, or working on some other project. There's obviously a lot of things they could be doing. Honestly, I don't care what they do. I'm bothered more by how they are marketing their efforts.

uh, that's not how project-planning works. If a member from one group jumps into another one to improve it, it completely screws up your timetable.
So that brings us back to believing Bioware or not. Instead of directly working on a sequel, they work on DLC. The decision about that is not up to you or me. If you don't like the DLC, don't buy it, you have that choice. I didn't see a reason for the feastday gifts, so i didn't buy them. I still had the complete game.

I'm confused as to why you keep responding to me. I was not complaining about any of the things you're referring to. I also stated that my belief doesn't matter on this issue. This is because EA/Bioware will ultimately do whatever they feel is profittable most likely. What I was complaining about was the marketing techiqnue. I was expressing my distatste for DLC being released at the same time as the game (that is what this thread is ultimately about), not DLC being released at all. I thought I made this clear when I said I don't care what they do with their extra manpower. Finally, just as I don't have to buy it, you don't have to read this thread.

Modifié par ColdbringeR, 03 mars 2011 - 03:36 .

[Aidunno]

ColdbringeR wrote...

My question now is, what minimum acceptable product constitutes as a "video game" since that's what DA2 is actually being advertised as?

To quote the wiki...

a video game is an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device.

In DA2's case however everyone can get more specific, taking trailers, discussions etc into play to define it further. Nowhere do they mention things like Sebastian being available in the game apart from as DLC. Yes you could ask me to define it futher but that would be pointless.

Let me pose a couple of different questions... would you prefer to be encouraged to buy a game through "optional extras" or have a restrictive Digital Rights Management (DRM) process in place?

Don't you think, DLC could be funded in part by the "marketing budget" ?

Don't you think Day 1 DLC is really a combination of these two options.. To encourage people to buy as early as possble and to provide a product "buzz" to reduce marketing costs.

[ColdbringeR]

Aidunno wrote...

ColdbringeR wrote...

My question now is, what minimum acceptable product constitutes as a "video game" since that's what DA2 is actually being advertised as?

To quote the wiki...

a video game is an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device.

In DA2's case however everyone can get more specific, taking trailers, discussions etc into play to define it further. Nowhere do they mention things like Sebastian being available in the game apart from as DLC. Yes you could ask me to define it futher but that would be pointless.

If we base what is acceptable on the technical definition then we should be content with Pong in a Dragon Age 2 box. Moving on... If we base it on what we read in articles, see in the demo, see on discussion boards, we get a much closer idea, but it could still be riddled with bugs, the story could still be an incoherent mess, the graphics in areas not seen in the demo/screenshots could be horrific. But according to you, this would still be acceptable.

The truth is we don't know what a video game is supposed be at its core before playing it beginning to end. The textbook definition is insufficient and the developer's definition (presented by demos and screenshots and whatnont) is too vague. For this reason, we cannot differentiate "extra" DLC from things that simply should have been included in the base product because we don't ultimately know what the base product should be in the first place. We have a rough idea at best. This puts us in a position to be taken advantage of by the manufacturers if they choose to place resources into DLC as opposed to putting them into the base product. Same amount of effort, if not less, from the developers. More money in their pockets. Do you understand yet?

Aidunno wrote...

Let me pose a couple of different questions... would you prefer to be encouraged to buy a game through "optional extras" or have a restrictive Digital Rights Management (DRM) process in place?

Don't you think, DLC could be funded in part by the "marketing budget" ?

Don't you think Day 1 DLC is really a combination of these two options.. To encourage people to buy as early as possble and to provide a product "buzz" to reduce marketing costs.

If it's anything like DA:O the DLC requires you to be logged in to your account while playing the game. This is their method of DRM and it could be achieved without charging for the DLC in the first place. The Stone Prisoner DLC that came with DA:O was a very good example of this. It was free to people who actually bought the game, created an account and registered their product. As such, your first question is moot. It is not a case of merely one option or the other unless you're implying that the optional extras are free, in which case I would obviously choose that.

Of course DLC can be funded in part by the marketing budget.

I think that day 1 DLC (that isn't free) serves the explicit purposes of creating additional revenue from the product and acting as a method of DRM simulteneously.

Modifié par ColdbringeR, 03 mars 2011 - 04:45 .

[Phoenixblight]

ColdbringeR wrote...

*snip*

Fernando Melo wrote...



The in-game login on main menu is separate thing, and is used for the one-time DLC authorization, or if you want to have character profile updates to this site - but similarly, after the one-time DLC check, you can play logged out as well.

SpockLives wrote...

Chris, what about DLC? If I install the Exiled Prince and other DLC, will I have to be logged in to play? Or will a one-time authentication do it?

 

DLC works in a similar principle - after the one time check you can be logged out and play.  

Aesieru wrote...

So when I install it AND the internet happens to be out, I will be incapable of playing it because it needs to go online?

Not too thrilled about that.

To be precise, you can install fine (and on as many PCs as you want).  It is when you start the game for the first time after install that you'll need to do the online check.

You don't need to be logged in after you have authorized your game and DLC the first time. 

[ColdbringeR]

Phoenixblight wrote...

You don't need to be logged in after you have authorized your game and DLC the first time. 

If that's the case, then day 1 DLC is less about DRM and more about revenue this time around.

Modifié par ColdbringeR, 03 mars 2011 - 04:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

ColdbringeR wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ErebUs890 wrote...

It feels as though I'm paying full price for an incomplete product.

It's a shame that's what it feels like, because it's not true.

BioWare decides the scope of the product they are selling you.  That's an important part of voluntary exchange.  Unless both parties agree, no transactions take place.  And BioWare has agreed only to sell you the game lacking the DLC content.

He said it feels like he's paying for an incomplete product. Why are you arguing with how someone feels? The idiocy in this thread knows no bounds I see. I happen to agree with him/her and I feel the same way.

I'm not disputing the feeling.  I'm disputing any reasonable justification for the feeling.

If you want to be irrational, go ahead.  But don't expect me not to point it out.

[Stanley Woo]

apoc_reg wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Sorry, folks, but we are not responsible for whether every individual knew or did not know about the Signature Edition offer. It was heavily advertised on our forums, website, and elsewhere. No one individual is so special that they should expect us to ignore our special offer expiry dates for them, whether they knew about the dates or not.

Thats fair enough Stanley but can i ask why the decision was made to limit the signature edition at all? I cant see the benefit for you either?

Thanks

Limited time offers are a standard marketing tactic. You advertise a product that is only available for a limited time, creating urgency and an inclination to purchase said product. those who were going to get the product anyway might want to ensure they get it. Those on the fence might have their minds changed and move firmly over to the "will buy" side. Those who didn't want to buy it might be swayed by the extras being offered. It is a benefit to the customer, who will get the product they were already interested in plus extras at no additional cost. It is a benefit to the company because pre-orders are one indicator of how popular a product might be at release.

[Jackalofdeath]

You can listen to garbage being spewed from the mouth of representatives or just look at their track record.

Simply put, it is not a "bonus" because someone labels it so. Dont take their word for it and look at the evidence yourself, im sure in time people will reverse engineer the game and show who was lying and who wasn't. History shows its usually people who work for EA who were lying.

And no it will never improve, it will only get worse.

[AlanC9]

ColdbringeR wrote...


My belief is that EA/Bioware develop their games at this point with DLC planned from the start, but my belief doesn't matter.

Since Day 1 DLC is an announced EA policy, I think we can move this out of the "belief" column.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Limited time offers are a standard marketing tactic.

Indeed.  I work in fundraising, and if you give donors a deadline you typically raise more money (and faster).

[shelledfade]

LyonVanguard wrote...

 Ok... wait... what?
Why couldn't they add this content to the retail game?
You expect me to pay $7.00 right after I payed $60.00 for a DIGITAL copy of a game?

DO NOT KNOW, but that is freaking dumb.

[AlanC9]

Jackalofdeath wrote...

You can listen to garbage being spewed from the mouth of representatives or just look at their track record.

Simply put, it is not a "bonus" because someone labels it so. Dont take their word for it and look at the evidence yourself, im sure in time people will reverse engineer the game and show who was lying and who wasn't. History shows its usually people who work for EA who were lying.

And no it will never improve, it will only get worse.

(Darkhour, are you still reading this. I told you there were folks who really believe this nonsense.)

Jackalofdeath, you're really saying that Bio were too stupid to work on a DLC separately from the main game?

[Will Moor]

While I am glad that this DLC is being made available for those of us who didn't, for whatever reason, pre-order the SE, I share the view of many other people that without it, the game will feel incomplete.  I can't help that this is how I feel, it just is.  

I will probably always adore Bioware tho. 

LPPrince wrote...
Then.......people should take anti-indigestion stuff and get over it?

You do not agree with those of us who feel that the game we will be buyng sans release-date DLC will seem incomplete, and that's fine.  But it would be really great if you could stop making dismissive remarks about how we feel and telling us to "get over it" or to take indigestion medication or say "thank you try again" to those you don't agree with.  That could be construed by some as being extremely insensitive and unkind.  We do believe that we have a good reason for feeling this way, even if you do not agree with us.  Thank you.  

Aradace wrote...

...What it will do, however, is "weed
out" the people unwilling to eat their food as a whole, but those that
are willing to take the minor inconvieniece of indigestion, will
continue to eat it regardless because it tastes good. ....

I am not so sure this is necessarily true.  The previously mentioned
"Bethesda Horse Armor" fiasco proves otherwise, in my humble opinion. 
There are many people and gaming magazines that seem to disapprove of
what is going on with the current DA2 DLC.  Like Bethesda, Bioware could
possibly choose to do things a little differently in the future because
of the negative attention they are getting over this. You never can tell.  *shrug*

Modifié par Will Moor, 03 mars 2011 - 07:34 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Aradace wrote...

To use your analogy, just because the practice is giving folks indigestion, doesnt mean that the practice wont continue.  What it will do, however, is "weed out" the people unwilling to eat their food as a whole, but those that are willing to take the minor inconvieniece of indigestion, will continue to eat it regardless because it tastes good.  Those that arent eating it, arent going to affect whether or not the practice continues because there are so many folks willing to still eat said food, regardless of the indigestion because they'll just take some antacids if the indigestion gets too uncomfortable.

I think that's the first time I've seen the "EA as Taco Bell" argument.

[MadLaughter]

I think the question: "Why did you make the limit two months prior instead of the release date" is a better one.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MadLaughter wrote...

I think the question: "Why did you make the limit two months prior instead of the release date" is a better one.

Two deadlines are better than one.

There are bonuses just for pre-ordering generally, aren't there?  That people missed the first deadline will make them less willing to miss the second one.

Consumer behaviour is remarkably predictable.

[Will Moor]

MadLaughter wrote...

I think the question: "Why did you make the limit two months prior instead of the release date" is a better one.

I think this is a very good question, if the pre-order SE had been available even a month longer, I would have done it, to be honest.  Actually, I would have done it had it been available even a DAY longer, because a point came when I had the means to do so but it was too late by only a day.  

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There are bonuses just for pre-ordering generally, aren't there?

Which are what?  Hopefully something more than belts or rings.

Modifié par Will Moor, 03 mars 2011 - 07:39 .

[Mordaedil]

I don't think paying money for a character I don't like will get me anywhere.

[Noviere]

Will Moor wrote...

Which are what?  Hopefully something more than belts or rings.

There are some in-game items. There's also the Black Emporium, the mabari whistle, and the Mirror of Transformation, which anyone who buys a new(ie: not pre-owned) copy of the game gets.

Modifié par Noviere, 03 mars 2011 - 08:01 .

[Invalidcode]

@ Noviere

A cute & adorable Morrigan! What on Thedas happened?

[BrandNewMan]

Won't DLC backfire for developers? As it stands, I now just wait for GOTY editions instead of buying day 1. I would have bought DA2 if I didn't expect an ultimate edition to come out at a later date with much more content. And seeing that I've become okay with waiting due to this, I just wait a little bit more for that GOTY edition to go on sale.

[Tleining]

MadLaughter wrote...

I think the question: "Why did you make the limit two months prior instead of the release date" is a better one.

because that would have been impossible? The Sig-Edition was produced on-demand. If the retailers registered 500.000 Copies, that many were produced. Getting Replies from the Retailers, producing that many copies, preparing Shipment....
How were they supposed to do that with a Release Date Deadline?

note: it is entirely possible that more copies were made. I don't think they produced 499999

[MadLaughter]

EA has done it multiple times. Look at Medal of Honor for a recent example.

[PsychoWARD23]

Eurypterid wrote...

As noted, Shale came with every new copy of DA:O. I believe you're thinking of the Warden's Keep DLC.

That aside, the reason they can't include it in the retail game is that the content of the game must be locked down months before release. That's not to say they couldn't give it away with every new game purchase, but they decided to reward those who pre-ordered. I'd suggest waiting to see what the DLC reviews are like and if it seems worth it, pick it up. If not, you'll save yourself some bucks. Either way, you still get a complete game without the DLC.

I pre-ordered, yet I'm still going to have to pay $7.00. Didn't know about the SE until it was too late.

[Randomjob]

BrandNewMan wrote...

Won't DLC backfire for developers? As it stands, I now just wait for GOTY editions instead of buying day 1. I would have bought DA2 if I didn't expect an ultimate edition to come out at a later date with much more content. And seeing that I've become okay with waiting due to this, I just wait a little bit more for that GOTY edition to go on sale.

This.  There are many games out there right now that I fully intend to buy, but because they have so much DLC, I can't justify getting it until there is a GOTY with all of it.  Strangely enough, if they had NO dlc, I'd probably just buy the game now and the game makers would get their money sooner.