251 réponses à ce sujet

[71Zarathustra71]

LFDog wrote...

71Zarathustra71 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Companies asking you to pay for a product is bad... or did you all not get the memo?

It's not about not wanting to pay for a product. It's about not wanting to pay for a product, get it home and realise they have removed a tiny portion of the game and are trying to sell it to you for nearly a quarter of the original price.

I have nothing against DLC. Updates that extend the life of a game and enhance it somehow are perfectly acceptable. However this is not DLC. It is a part of the original game that they have cynically tried to profit from. It isn't a surprise that a company has attempted this. Even less of a surprise that it was EA.

Would it have made a difference if they waited a month prior to releasing this module?  Yes.  They *could* have included it with the full game and they probably also developed it at the same time as the full game. 

However, they also needed a way to demonstrate the fact that this game will use DLC.  They did this by offering a free DLC to those that pre-ordered (Stone Prisoner) and they demonstrated the paid DLC by having a small module available for purchase on launch.

It's really not that big of a cost - or that big of a deal.  The content is not relevant to the main story in terms of playability and the "value" of the module is dependent on your perception of how much $7 worth of entertainment looks like.  

I'm also a comic collector and wrote a rather long article on "entertainment density" in which I looled at raw density of entertainment options as a factor against price.  Video Games are actually one of the best values for your entertainment budget.  Even without replay - a typical video game at even $100 would be a good value in comparision to ... well, almost anything.  Experiencial entertainment (day-passes at amusement parks, zoos, etc) are consumed by the time the park closes.  Movies (rented or theatre) end after the show.  Video's purchased have lower replay value (in genereal - I mean, watching Star Wars 100x is not entertaining - it's addiction and sad)

I guess what I am saying is that $7 for a small 2hr adventure is probably not that bad a deal if you are objective about it and compare it to alternatives.

It would have mattered if they had released it in a month's time because it would have been even more cynical. We may have not known this but that wouldn't change their motives.

As to your second point; there is no need to demonstrate the concept of DLC. We all understand the nature of an expansion/DLC. I'm pretty sure this isn't anyone's first time playing a video game. I also notice that Rockstar's recent DLCs for GTA 4 did okay and didn't cause any problems even though we didn't have a 'demonstration' of how they would work in the original release.

I agree that seven pounds isn't a lot but that is hardly the point when it comes to value for money. It's the principle. Just because I don't consider seven pounds a lot of money does not mean I want to just throw it away. If you compare the game you get for the RRP to the DLC then I would say it is impossible to conclude that the DLC is value for money.

Value for money of video games may comapre favourably to other mediums but a straight comparison bewtween game and DLC shows the DLC to be a ripoff regardless of the amount charged.

I think it especially cynical to apply this new marketing concept to a genre that is obsessive by its nature and was by far the likeliest to yield high sales for the 'experiment'. Bioware has a strong following and they have 'rewarded' this following by abusing their devotion.

Modifié par 71Zarathustra71, 18 novembre 2009 - 06:00 .

[Zeluna]

AshedMan wrote...

I fully support DLC and even Day 1 - DLC, however, I cannot support $7-$15 prices for one hour of content.

If the DLC they release is akin to the Deep Roads experience or the Circle of Magi (content that was broad, deep, and took some time to complete) then I would be a happy camper purchasing all of it. Look at Fallout 3's DLC. They had similar pricing but at least offered 3-6 hours of play.

Charging $7 for Warden's Keep and $15 for Stone Prisoner is pure greediness coming from EA. I cannot and will not support anymore of that.

Exactly, I won't fall prey to 1 hours worth of content from Bioware anymore. Thats just crap. $7 for a Deep Roads type of adventure would be highly worth it but Warden's Keep was a freakin joke for that much money. Pure crap content. I was screwed!

[71Zarathustra71]

LFDog wrote...
The point is - DLC is ultimately a good thing as it helps the original game system to be built upon. 

I have no problem with DLC. I have paid for quite a lot of it. My problem is with THIS DLC in particular.

[LFDog]

Lowlander wrote...

I also remember sitting around a table for many hours rolling dice, smoking and drinking and adventuring for days on end. And yes the modules we bought then are equivilant to DLC today.

Ahh no. I also played AD&D modules back in the '80s.  Modules != DLC.

Modules were equivalent to a full blown expansion, not short crappy DLC, A full adventure story usually taking multiple days of playthrough. A module would be more like "Hordes of the Underdark" for NWN, than the 1 hour DLC nonsense.

You couldn't sell a module that gave 1 hour playtime.

It depended on the module.  There were some that were very short.  (yes.  even some that you paid for).
The later modules were not full-blown expansions either.  Usually, the later ones (the ones that were part of a series) were limited in scope.  Also, they were far more expensive then the DLC that we have today.  Also, it's important to note that 1hr of dice-rolling, chip eating and pencil marking is far, far less than 1 hr of video game time.   A 2hr DLC is probably the same "content" that would take a full day to play in the "old" way. 

Again, old guys help out - I think a module would have been $15-$25 in 1985 (wow.  I started D&D in the late 70's - ga! feeling...my....age....)

Anyhow.  I do remember some modules as only being 10-20 pages long.  Surely, someone here has their old D&D box to pull a module or two out of and take a look. 

[71Zarathustra71]

Sorry, double posted for some reason.

Modifié par 71Zarathustra71, 18 novembre 2009 - 06:01 .

[Bsett100]

AshedMan wrote...

I fully support DLC and even Day 1 - DLC, however, I cannot support $7-$15 prices for one hour of content.

If the DLC they release is akin to the Deep Roads experience or the Circle of Magi (content that was broad, deep, and took some time to complete) then I would be a happy camper purchasing all of it. Look at Fallout 3's DLC. They had similar pricing but at least offered 3-6 hours of play.

Charging $7 for Warden's Keep and $15 for Stone Prisoner is pure greediness coming from EA. I cannot and will not support anymore of that.

These are my sentiments exactly. I'm not opposed to paying for DLC. Give me content that is worth the price and I'll gladly pay but for 1 hr extra play at 25% the cost of game!

[LFDog]

71Zarathustra71 wrote...

LFDog wrote...
The point is - DLC is ultimately a good thing as it helps the original game system to be built upon. 

I have no problem with DLC. I have paid for quite a lot of it. My problem is with THIS DLC in particular.

Then I suppose we will simply disagree.
I felt that the money for this DLC was worth the entertainment and that it represents a good value for the content provided.  I'm not sure if the content costs different prices in different locations, but I paid about $7 for it. (not 7 pounds).

What I really disagree upon is the projection of motives on the process.  To suggest that EA is being cynical or trying to "rip us off" is actually a little much (in my opinion).  I just don't see them as cigar-smoking, top-hat wearing robber barons attempting to suck our wallets dry before starting in on our blood.

I see them as a business that provides a product that you can either purchase or not purchase.  At best, this process of purchasing DLC may have left you with an experience you did not value and you will be less likely to purchase as quickly in the future.  I have yet to experience a similar anquish and am happy with both my purchase and the prospect to purchase more in the future.

[Akka le Vil]

Paying for DLC doesn't mean better games in the future, it means more DLC in the future.

I don't want DLC, I want good games. I will pay for games, certainly not for DLC.



And CERTAINLY NOT for DLC that use offensive methods to bait and pressure buying.

If you're sheeps and enjoy being advertised in your games, then be tools but don't expect other to be. I'm certainly not going to support this kind of intrusive and unacceptable methods.

[wrdnshprd]

I have no problem with DLC, even day one DLC if done correctly.



That being said, those that do have a problem with it have a right to speak their mind on a SOCIAL FORUM just like the rest of us (as long as it is constructive of course). that is what this forum is for right?



last i checked this is a free country and we have a right to speak our minds. if you disagree with their view.. cool.. but that doesnt make them a 'whiner' or 'a person of entitlement' because you disagree with them.

[oghier]

I like DLC, and I do not mind paying for it. If that is what it takes to convince studios to invest in AAA RPG's and their long, expensive development cycles, then it is fine with me. I want to see DA2, NWN3, Elder Scrolls4, and so on.



On balance, customers should fret less about business models. Look at the sum total you pay for a game, then decide whether that total is worth it. Whether that comes as one $65 base price, or a $49.99 price and a couple of $7 downloads ultimately matters little. Realize that profitable games spawn more such games.



Without DLC, I suspect we'd be headed for a future where big publishers did nothing but sure-fire hits with short development cycles. That's Madden, Deer Hunter and Shooters. Also, Peggle. I'd just as soon pay more for a game I really want to play



That said, *in-game* advertisements are not a good development.

[Reiella]

wrdnshprd wrote...

I have no problem with DLC, even day one DLC if done correctly.

That being said, those that do have a problem with it have a right to speak their mind on a SOCIAL FORUM just like the rest of us (as long as it is constructive of course). that is what this forum is for right?

last i checked this is a free country and we have a right to speak our minds. if you disagree with their view.. cool.. but that doesnt make them a 'whiner' or 'a person of entitlement' because you disagree with them.

That argument goes both ways you know.  Folks have every right to disagree with someone else as well.

[LFDog]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Paying for DLC doesn't mean better games in the future, it means more DLC in the future.
I don't want DLC, I want good games. I will pay for games, certainly not for DLC.

And CERTAINLY NOT for DLC that use offensive methods to bait and pressure buying.
If you're sheeps and enjoy being advertised in your games, then be tools but don't expect other to be. I'm certainly not going to support this kind of intrusive and unacceptable methods.

Thank you for the insult and calling me a sheep.

If you don't like DLC and prefer to only buy games - then have at it.  Around here there are new games every Tuesday - so you should be just fine.

If a game system (engine, environment, story, etc) is well done.  I like the idea of extending and revisiting it.  Either through a full-blown sequel, expansion packs, or smaller DLC.  That doesn't make me "baaaa" - it just gives me options.  In fact, if the developers give me a free toolkit of my very own - it gives me even more!

I've stated my opinions on the method of delivery for DLC previously, but will agree that there is no place in my camp for a salesperson.

[71Zarathustra71]

It has nothing to do with the future of video games or the mode of their delivery. It's about value for money. This is not value for money. It is a cynical exploitation of players who feel like they don't want to miss any of the game.

If you can't see the cynicism in a company that published The Sims and all its attendant rubbish then you'll never see it.

Modifié par 71Zarathustra71, 18 novembre 2009 - 06:24 .

[LFDog]

wrdnshprd wrote...

I have no problem with DLC, even day one DLC if done correctly.

That being said, those that do have a problem with it have a right to speak their mind on a SOCIAL FORUM just like the rest of us (as long as it is constructive of course). that is what this forum is for right?

last i checked this is a free country and we have a right to speak our minds. if you disagree with their view.. cool.. but that doesnt make them a 'whiner' or 'a person of entitlement' because you disagree with them.

I think disagreement is healthy and provides perspective.  I do take issue when the disagreement projects motive without evidence however.  So you can disagree with DLC all you want, but to suggest that the developers are attacking us, abusing us, ripping us off, being mean and stealing our lunch money  ---- that's a bit much, isn't it?  This is a social forum and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but don't be surprised if someone challenges your assumptions or disagrees with your conclusions.

If someone said:  "I didn't like Warden's Keep becuase it only took me 2 hours and I didn't like the quest" - that's one thing.  If someone says: "BioWare and EA are possesed by evil deamons and forced me to buy this DLC by threatening to kill my dog and I had to buy it and it was evil and it made me take-up smokng ... " -- that's another matter, isn't it?

The most important thing is to be respectful and not call people sheep. 

[smelph]

VanDraegon wrote...

smelph wrote...
I would have no problem paying 7 bucks for 7 hours worth of content. $1/hour is far more reasonable than $7/hour.

Says the person not running a big software development company that has to pay the wages, taxes and insurance on all its employees.

It is the same in my business. You show up to do a job for someone and they expect you to do the work for practically nothing.

fair enough, but how many employees spent man-hours working on a particular piece of DLC?  let's assume for a second that 20 people (including whatever voice/art talent is involved) worked on this thing for 2 weeks straight.  so you have 20 people spending 80 hours on it for a total of 1600 man-hours.  let's also assume the length of the DLC is 1 hour long (more or less) so they are charging $1 for it. (I think -although I may be wrong- for 1600 man-hours you could make something with a longer run-time than that, but this is just hypothetical) now let's assume that 50,000 people wind up downloading this DLC, bringing in $50,000.00.

according to http://www.vgchartz....me.php?id=33505, the xbox 360 version alone sold over 219,000 units in the americas.  so for now I won't even count the PC and ps3 versions or foreign versions.  in short, 50,000 downloads is less than 25% of total xbox360 userbase (which seems like a conservative number to me).

now, that $50,000 for 1600 man-hours of work comes to $31.25/man-hour, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.  granted this doesn't account for overhead such as insurance, etc., so if we assume (again, just for the sake of a hypothetical) 20% of that $31.25 goes towards this other overhead, each person is still pulling in $25/hour.

I don't know about any of you, but that's a pretty decent wage, in my opinion.  so while we're all entitled to our opinons, and don't necessarily have to agree, I think I'll stand by my notion that for roughly 1 hour of content $7 seems too expensive.  I will extend an olive branch though and suggest $1/hour may be a touch low, and revise my position to be $2/hour.

again, i am not opposed to DLC so much as I would like it to be a little less expensive. 

Modifié par smelph, 18 novembre 2009 - 06:30 .

[Nerhesi]

As a Senior Analyst with a 300+ Enterprise Solutions office, I can tell you "DLC" is following the costing trend all major IT solutions offices have had to adopt. This is for the good, and I'll try to quickly explain without boring you (too late I know, blah blah).



Back in the day, the Business (that would be you guys) would raise the need with IT (this would be the game developers) that they want XXX product (This would be dragon age). The expectation would then be to deliver the product, and continuously enhance and support it with very little additional capital (give me free stuff please).



No. Sorry. There are several reason this had to change. You have spend money to churn out meaningful enhancements (additional content, sequels, etc..) and you have to spend money on your intellectual capital (those skilled folk who churned out the first one) to keep them from going elsewhere.



It is just the cost of doing business now. The added content, we as players expect, is no longer a 1-man operation that takes a month or two. We expect polish and we expect a competent team of developers, analysts, writers, etc... Can you blame us? It's like.. we expect something good!



Something good does not come for free. I am very happy about DLC... MMOs charge me 15.00 per month to play, of which a minute portion is for "server upkeep" - the rest goes into enhancement, I would love the same treatment from Single Player games (although single player DLC at 15.00 per month, I'd be expecting something like Shale every month).



Sam W.

[LFDog]

Your definintion of cynicism is new to me.



Is this state reached by providing an open, expandible environment and new content? Is it reached by providing a toolkit and developing more adventures for me to play?



If a player feels that they *must* by a product or risk missing part of the game - then they may have larger issues around their need for completion.



Unless I am wrong - DA can be played to conclusion withouth any need for DLC. Correct? The only "need" for the DLC is your own assessment of value to expense. The fact that it is made available is not the problem. The conclusion that it is "needed" is.



From what I understand, there are many people that enjoy the Sims and the ability to add to it.

[TileToad]

I think DLC is the price we pay for all the piracy done in the past.. and still.



Btw, no-one forces anyone to buy DLC so why is this even an issue?

[smelph]

TileToad wrote...

I think DLC is the price we pay for all the piracy done in the past.. and still.

Btw, no-one forces anyone to buy DLC so why is this even an issue?

for me it's becasue the DLC is something I'd like to take part in but am unable to justify the cost.

[oghier]

Lowlander wrote...

The old model of a complete game (like NWN) with full blown high value expansions (Shadows/Hordes) was clearly a better one for the consumer.

This is just seems like a cynical cash grab with low consumer value, milking tiny bits of, should have, could have been included content.

Development costs have gone up a heap since NWN.  That was a great game, but probably cheaper by a factor of 10.

[Reiella]

Yelina wrote...


Exactly, I won't fall prey to 1 hours worth of content from Bioware anymore. Thats just crap. $7 for a Deep Roads type of adventure would be highly worth it but Warden's Keep was a freakin joke for that much money. Pure crap content. I was screwed!

Therein lies a nice inherent advantage to DLC though.  Me, I wouldn't much like a recycled random dungeon delve.  Would like some story, voice and art to go along with it.  While random-ish/procedurally generated dungeons ala .hack do appeal to some [and at times, they do appeal to me as well, but I much preferred the crafted levels ], it not necessarily everyone.  So I don't have to 'pay' for development of something I don't much like, as would happen with a general release or an expansion pack.  As those have a bit of an onus to appeal to a larger target audience than the nature of a DLC.

[71Zarathustra71]

The state is reached by ring-fencing a tiny portion of a game and then charging a price for it that doesn't correlate with the value for money seen in the rest of the game.



The state is also reached by only doing this type of marketing in a genre known for its obsessive nature rather than in the more mainstream sports franchises and others.



If it isn't cynicism then why hasn't this type of marketing been rolled out over the whole of EA's catalogue?