187 réponses à ce sujet

[Baamin]

Ashr4m wrote...

I do defend my opinion up to a point... when I start noticing that other ppl don't agree with what I said then I just take it as it is... this is my opinion and I accept other ppls opinion whether I agree with it or not... and I leave it at that. No need to continually defend my opinion when I already have stated it

This is a forum, where people state their opinions and discuess them. Otherwise it would be called Statement-Shoutbox ...

here... since I'm not agreeing with what gonna happen I'll show you what you should do...

[Eternal Phoenix]

Want an unfinished game? Try Fable II + 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. DA2 was rushed and there's no denying that but at least it was tested and contained no game-killing bugs. Plus - if you finish every quest, you'll get more than 30 hours. As some people have said, they're still on act 1 with 30 hours. So yes, it is worth the money but I'm not justifying Bioware rushing it for the likes of ME3. EA or no EA, we know Bioware rushed it for ME3.

No offense, but come back when you've played through the whole game.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 16 mars 2011 - 11:43 .

[Ariella]

fishx255 wrote...

It may not have been a ripoff, but I don't see what people gain from defending da2. They cut corners and the time spent to develop it was too short.

Developement started as soon as Origins was on the shelves in 09 and remember they moved the release date BACK. I honestly don't want to wait as long as I did for Origins for another DA game (developement time: 5 years)

[Iz Stoik zI]

Ashr4m wrote...

@Baamin, Cyanide Disaster, Drogo45

Are those people for real? They are in a forum, yet they dont seem to know what forums are about, they think people post to much on their opinion yet they continue to provoke others to post more (even with some rather offending methods), not to mention that they try to attack people personally trying to make their opinions worthless?

I really hope that those people are trolls, cause if not i might lose all hope in mankind ...

No offense intended, but your opinion was greatly devalued the moment you said:

I havent bought the game, but i played the demo and read a lot of reviews

It's not a great idea to try and criticize something before you've even played it, and even moreso when trying to compare the two DA game's $60 values to eachother when you should really be comparing them to other similar titles on the market, like Fable III perhaps. Just saying.

Modifié par Iz Stoik zI, 16 mars 2011 - 11:44 .

[AtreiyaN7]

With all the time I've put in thus far, It was well worth the money for me - 45 hours and 30 minutes on my first run. As for you, I might give your opinion some weight if you, oh, actually played the game. Since you didn't, I don't.

[LeviathanZero]

I find people complaining about the price of DA2 utterly hilarious.
Move to Australia and start paying our prices, THEN you get the right to complain, the OP's quoted price of $60 new would be considered a cheapie B-title game over here.

I'm importing my copy from the UK, it's going to take 2-6 weeks to get it but I'll save nearly as much money as the OP paid

[Bryy_Miller]

xSHAD0WENx wrote...

bioware/EA isn't seeing my money for this game. however when it drops down to $40 then i'll get it.

So... they will be seeing your money, is what you are saying?

$60... $40... it doesn't matter. What matters is that you are added to the overall sales numbers.

[Iz Stoik zI]

Ashr4m wrote...

Thats were you are wrong. I even limited my critique to things that are facts. So tell why shouldnt i be able to talk about objective facts about production costs, recyckling of maps, short development time etc.?

DA2's development started as soon as DA:O went gold, which at this point is about a year and a half ago. Not all that short.

Recycling of maps is a little irritating but it doesn't take away from the game too much. Honestly, all of your arguments are moot. DA2 takes 25-45 hours to complete and almost all of it is a great experience; that's worth $60 on the market. Compared to DA:O which was overflowing with boatloads of content it may seem to be of lower worth but when compared to similar titles on the market this game is priced exactly where it should be.

Play the damn game and come back.

EDIT: hours, not minutes!

Modifié par Iz Stoik zI, 16 mars 2011 - 11:53 .

[Deadmac]

Ashr4m wrote...
Obviously Bioware/EA trying to get as much money out of the franchise as fast as possible. Which is why i hate EA, they are all about their investors, which is a big problem since this forces them to release games every year and make the development-time as short as possible to have a steady income.

My theory only...
BioWare is trying to make enough revenue to cover the cost in making "Star Wars: the Old Republic". Instead of going deep into the red, like Cheyenne Mountain Entertainment, BioWare is using their assets wisely to cover their expenses.

That is also why the negative reviews for "Dragon Age II" had an impact. BioWare is nervous about a possible $300 million game falling short.

Modifié par Deadmac, 16 mars 2011 - 11:58 .

[LeviathanZero]

Ashr4m wrote...

When will people stop posting this, just think about the logic behind this please. So because people in XY have no human rights its okay to cut human rights in YX? Not to mention i guess i wont have to tell you that pricing in australia is the biggest ripp-off ive ever seen. One could have argued that the shipment costs where that high (which would be a lie), not to mention that after digital distribution this argument is not even an argument anymore.

It's perfectly logical. People are complaining that the game costs too much for what it delivers, and those of us that get charged 1.5-2x the price for all games are pointing out that they're in fact already getting it cheap from other's point of view.
It's called perspective, when you complain at people who don't get to have cake that your cake is only vanilla not chocolate, we ask you to think about the rest of us and realise that your situation isn't that bad.

Modifié par LeviathanZero, 16 mars 2011 - 11:59 .

[MrWakka]

I was disappointed, but it isn't a rip-off. There is enough content to justify the 60 dollar price tag, even if it may not live up to expectations. I was disappointed, but I got my moneys worth.

[Bryy_Miller]

Ashr4m wrote...

LeviathanZero wrote...

I find people complaining about the price of DA2 utterly hilarious.
Move to Australia and start paying our prices, THEN you get the right to complain, the OP's quoted price of $60 new would be considered a cheapie B-title game over here.

When will people stop posting this, just think about the logic behind this please. So because people in XY have no human rights its okay to cut human rights in YX? 

That's completely not what they were saying. 

They are saying that you don't have it as bad as you could, so be thankful for what you got. 

[LeviathanZero]

Ashr4m wrote...

Well you may be right there. MMORPGS are pretty harsh, you either fail hard or get a lot of money. Either way since there is a flood of MMORPGS but just few "free consumers" (im pretty shure most people would neither pay for more than one of those every month nor would they even invest the extra time needed) the market is pretty harsh. So i think SW will fail here since you can only beat WoW if you have something spectacular. SW looks good but not spectacular at this point (at least to me).

You don't have to "beat" WoW to be successful in the MMO market. Yes, the market is harsh and EA/Bioware are sinking a lot of money into SWTOR, but the break-even over expected lifetime of game point is far lower than taking down the Behemoth requires.

[Deadmac]

Ashr4m wrote...
Well you may be right there. MMORPGS are pretty harsh, you either fail hard or get a lot of money. Either way since there is a flood of MMORPGS but just few "free consumers" (im pretty shure most people would neither pay for more than one of those every month nor would they even invest the extra time needed) the market is pretty harsh. So i think SW will fail here since you can only beat WoW if you have something spectacular. SW looks good but not spectacular at this point (at least to me).

My second theory...
I think BioWare knew ahead of time "Dragon Age II" was a money grab, so they priced it at a high level in anticipating consumer fallout. All the cut corners (recycled levels, stripped down interfaces, npc limited customization, etc..) all adds up to a nervous developer trying to beat a deadline. If they needed money for something important, (advertising as an example), "Dragon Age II's" speedy path from production to release is a good indicator.

"Star Wars: the Old Republic's" release date was just pushed beyond July 2011. I bet it was in response to "Dragon Age II" being slow on sales growth. BioWare saw the writing on the wall, and they had to hold back 'The Old Republic's" release date to accumulate more funds.

Expect 'cautious' dlc to arrive pretty rapidly. BioWare will attempt to shock the fans with larger dlc, so that the main game will become more attractive to consumers.

Modifié par Deadmac, 17 mars 2011 - 12:13 .

[LeviathanZero]

Ashr4m wrote...

That doesnt change the fact that you cant start to talk about my position you cant just completely apply your point of view. Even more so when your point of view is rather strange in the first place since as i said i guess you would agree that the pricing in australia is not comprehensible.

I doubt you'll ever get any argument from an Australian on that one. But just as I can't completely apply my point of view to your situation, you should consider the situations of others when complaining about your own. As Bryy_Miller said, be thankful for what you have.

Not to mention that our aim should be to get high standards for everyone, and not to get everyone else down to the lowest comon denominator. ( I know i say that a lot but i really think that this is important)

Now this point, I wholeheartedly agree with, just don't use local prices as your basis for where the quality bar is.

[Drake Sigar]

Gamers buy the new Smackdown Vs Raw or Madden every year and they’re basically $60 roster updates. Gamers bought the Ghostbusters Slimer Edition ($130) which contained nothing but a keychain and cheap plastic model made in oriental sweatshops. Gamers bought Fable 3 black dye DLC. Gamers would buy a plastic bag full of feces if it had the Call of Duty logo slapped on it. Is it a company's fault if they play along with our idiocy? 

Modifié par Drake Sigar, 17 mars 2011 - 12:16 .

[DA_Joran]

You young people need some perspective. I read the first few posts and a few off this last page. It seems the main gist of everything is price (money) vs. value (content, length, complexity, pleasure, etc.). If I am wrong, I apologize.

1. From my perspective regardless of all factors, games are too expensive today.
2. I started buying games when new games costs only $19.99.
3. I also remember expansions (DLCs) adding significant value to the base product.

The generation of gamers you may belong too get ripped off routinely. A prime example is DC Universe online. The base game -- Base Game -- costs approximately $60.00 USD. Why? You can't play the game unless you pay a subscription fee. Ok. It's an MMORPG and different rules apply. Maybe it's not good example. But, it is if you think in terms of money.

Base Game -- $60
Monthly Fee -- $15 (if you don't take a package deal)

$15 x 12 = $180.00 in online fees for a year ( some will take this route without thinking)

So, in a year from the day of purchase, a gamer will potentially spend $240.00 on one game. That's insane to me. No video game is that good or worth that kind of money.

Lets go back to the average game that sells with a multiplayer aspect. It will cost the expected $60. And somewhere down the line, a DLC will be offered that costs anywhere from $4.99 - $14.99. Let's say you purchase 3 DLCs @ $9.99. Your $60 game now costs you $90 and the DLC, on average, didn't add much value (Warden's Keep anyone?) and often looks like it should have been included with the original product.

At some point, you will have to decide how much is enough. I reached that point. It's why I rent now instead of own. If I want to play the game at a later date, I can rent it again. There is no need for me to spend all that money or worry about trade-ins. I don't get as upset when games turn out to be shorter than expected or have crappy game play. Why? Because I've spent less money.

[Deadmac]

DA_Joran wrote...
At some point, you will have to decide how much is enough. I reached that point. It's why I rent now instead of own. If I want to play the game at a later date, I can rent it again. There is no need for me to spend all that money or worry about trade-ins. I don't get as upset when games turn out to be shorter than expected or have crappy game play. Why? Because I've spent less money.

Your entire post was a breath of truth and fresh air.

"Diablo II" cost $29.99 upon release.
"Diablo II's expansion packs cost $19.99 upon release.

When it comes to the downloaded content for modern games, I think they are the biggest '900 number scheme' of this generation. Even though you get the first thirty minutes for $60, extra minutes you accumulate will cost you an additional $14. Game companies have learned from phone companies. Its the same with MMOs and MMORPGs.

Its called fleecing the consumer.

If you put that $180.00 you are talking about on credit card, the interest alone will be a pain in the but. Other words, the expense to play the game is that much more.

Modifié par Deadmac, 17 mars 2011 - 12:32 .

[DA_Joran]

I think it's up to parents to demonstrate the full costs of playing video games. The younger generation is gonna have to deal with so much more and have no idea how much it's gonna cost. They will have to pay back all the money our government has spent. And everyday products are going to rise in cost (inflation people). Video games are not necessary. They are a distraction and for fun. Kids need to be educated on the true costs.

My meaning ... Your kid wants to play DCUO so bad he cant stand it -- Then your child has to earn it. Not only that, they have to appreciate how much it is costing you every month. They want to go to Chuck E. Cheese. No, they can't. Why? Because the money to go to Chuck E. Cheese was spent on a video game. Consequences need to be attached to video game purchases and such. It's the only way to break the cycle of generations willing to pay higher prices for less product.