251 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerhesi]

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 complete new 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.

DLC as presented so far is more like small bit of content cut out of the original game and then sold back to you later.

I find it highly offensive, like they are trying to put one over on me. My goodwill toward Bioware is evaporating.

I find it highly offensive, and I am prone to think that you are being selectively obtuse, to compare the work required to create an '80s module to the effort required for current add-on.

As for NWN - released June 2002

Hordes of the Underdark - released december 2003 (Yes, that is 1.5 years after, and 1 year after the previous expansion)... and was still played through in only 20-30 hours.

[KalDurenik]

DLC would have happened without piracy anyway.

Like i said before why would they sell expansions (cost more to make and need a even higher quality) when they can make 10-15 DLC that last for 20-60min cost less to make and they will make 7$ each? (Its more then they would get for a expansion and they wont even have to spend alot).

is DLC good for the users? No way in hell it will start to get abused to hell and back. And soon we will start to pay up to 200$ just for a complete game (due to all the cut out stuff that we can buy for "only" 7$).

Is it good for the devs? Yes less work, more money, no printing to cd's. Money = good.

*sigh* anyway if a DLC is 4-6 hours and have the price 2-4$ then sure... But its never going to happen now is it?

Modifié par KalDurenik, 18 novembre 2009 - 06:57 .

[Aidunno]

Nerhesi wrote...

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.

Having worked in the IT business for over 20 years the only reason people have had to adapt is due to expectations changing. It used to be you paid for a quality product and needed little support. This provided a good income while selling a product but you had to then have another product in the wings to sell in the next quarter to keep the shareholders happy.

Then someone came up with the bright idea that you can virtually give away products IF you get people to "support" you long term. This could mean the product would not necessarily be polished as it would then need then be supported for which customers would need to pay, providing a constant revenue stream. Even better if  the off the shelf product could be "customized" by consultants so the off the shelf product ended up costing several 10's of thousands more. So you end up with a cheap product but really expensive customization and support contracts which are brought by major companies Purchasing normally by management not the people who actually will use it. Probably the sale involving a salesman who knows the mangement already and a round of golf.

It's a sad fact that this model is now common place. They give mobile phones away if you have expensive contracts, replacement print cartridges cost the same as a new printer (and they are doing their best to try to make sure you can't refill them). Things are designed to break down so you need extra warantees etc.

Thankfully with DAO we have a quality product.

[horang]

VanDraegon wrote...
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.

Thats the company's problem not the consumers though.  The consumer never has the obligation to make the company profitable.  The price is appropriate so long as the market will bare it.  Right now the complaints being voiced on these boards and on the blogs are the symptoms of market groaning under the weight of the price.   I am quite sure that WK made money for the company as many of us in a fit of excitement (myself included) bought the product sight unseen.   Ok, fine, caveat emptor- but dont expect us to make the mistake a second time around.  However, I suspect that the average customer is going to be far more wary of buying future DLCs. 

Honestly though, I think the gaming industry might be best served by a good economic culling.   With the exception of the occasional gem such as DA:O, the best games are being produced by smaller niche companies like Paradox, not the bloated conglomerates. 

Modifié par horang, 18 novembre 2009 - 07:28 .

[wrdnshprd]

Reiella wrote...

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.

absolutely.. everyone has a right to their opinion, but personally i dont think that people that disagree with the DLC are 'whiners' or 'people of entitlement' as some others have said   thats my only point.

its the same issue i have on political views.. just because someone has a different viewpoint than yours, doesnt make them a 'complainer', regardless of how outragous their view might be.  the day we stop speaking our minds, is the day our freedoms truly disappear.

[Aidunno]

horang wrote...

Honestly though, I think the gaming industry might be best served by a good economic culling.   With the exception of the occasional gem such as DA:O, the best games are being produced by smaller niche companies like Paradox, not the bloated conglomerates. 

Agreed.. To me it's the gameplay, not the top of the line graphics which are important which seems to be the holy grail for the big companies. You can't get very much further along the graphical line anyway and if you do it's not likely to be the massive "jumps" you have had in the past.

On the DLC front, something to bear in mind is that Bioware has had the guts to release the toolkit which means they have already given away the means for others to produce competitive "products" which are likely to be given away free. Makes charging for future content more difficult unless it is really high quality.

[LFDog]

The over-all growth in the game market is actually moving towards casual gaming, small games and games purchased via avenues such as iPods, Flash games and such.



On the other end of the scale are the large "production" games - which are starting to cost as much as films to produce. So expect more Acrtion Figures, T-Shirts, and Happy Meals around video games as well...



The bottom-line is that the consumer has to make a choice where to spend their money and companies need to decide where to provide product in an effort to generate revenue. The accusation of cynacism or consumer abuse seems very far-fectched to me. Forgive me if I don't feel bad that your OCD has caused a deep *need* for a game module. Personally, I feel I really *need* a private island with a golf course, scuba gear, and more... those cynial real estate agents keep me from it.



I'll agree that the sales model of placing a person in my camp is really cheesy. Not cynical though.



Personally, I would rather spend $15 a month on DLC than on an access fee. That's just me. Some people may prefer to WoW the night and days away in an all-you-can-play buffet. Not me. All respect to them though.



Call of Duty pulled 500 million in 5 days. wow. Gaming is getting all grown-up and we'll all need to pick and choose what we play and how much.



This also isn't just a video game thing. Sports fans complain about ticket prices, cost of memorabilia and more. Comic collectors complain about special covers. Stamp collectors complain about too many commemortive issues. Basically, people like to find fault with what they percieve as a restriction on their ability to play. For heaven's sake - people complain that they have to insert the CD in their computer to play the game!



I'm all for consumer rights. You have the right to purchase or not purchase the products offered to you. Buyer beware.

[salbine]

I don't mind DLCs if they're worth the money. I've never understood why Bethesda, for example, doesn't keep churning out Knights of the Nine style DLCs for Oblivion. Tons of people still play and would fork over cash for more content in a heartbeat. They should dedicate a small team to making DLCs and churn out one every couple of months until the next TES game.



I also don't mind expansion packs. It's when I start to feel nickel and dimed, and when the DLCs are advertised in game, that I get turned off.

[TileToad]

KalDurenik wrote...

DLC would have happened without piracy anyway.

Like i said before why would they sell expansions (cost more to make and need a even higher quality) when they can make 10-15 DLC that last for 20-60min cost less to make and they will make 7$ each? (Its more then they would get for a expansion and they wont even have to spend alot).

is DLC good for the users? No way in hell it will start to get abused to hell and back. And soon we will start to pay up to 200$ just for a complete game (due to all the cut out stuff that we can buy for "only" 7$).

Is it good for the devs? Yes less work, more money, no printing to cd's. Money = good.

*sigh* anyway if a DLC is 4-6 hours and have the price 2-4$ then sure... But its never going to happen now is it?

Ideally we consumers (not to be confused with customers) would never buy something that's obviously a way to scheme us out of our money but, of course, this is never gonna happen in reality.
Instant gratification is our new God!
People can't even prevent themselves from polluting/destroying the planet, which our very existence depends on. How much self control can we possibly expect from something as relatively innocent as buying overpriced DLC?

It's actually pretty sad..

[salbine]

Lowlander wrote...
[b]This is definitely a slippery slope. If we accept this we are going to be paying for more incomplete games and needing to pay for additional pieces to complete them.

This is my one fear about the future of DLCs. I don't want to pay full price for a game and then have the developer immediately hold out its hand for more cash to round out that game. I wouldn't mind paying $10 for a game engine and then selecting content from a menu, but if I've paid $50-60, the game had better be complete. It turned me off that BioWare was offering a DLC on the day the game was released (for those of us who didn't buy the steam edition). I just paid full price and now I already have to pay more to get all the available content? No thank you.

[Livemmo]

salbine wrote...

Lowlander wrote...
[b]This is definitely a slippery slope. If we accept this we are going to be paying for more incomplete games and needing to pay for additional pieces to complete them.

This is my one fear about the future of DLCs. I don't want to pay full price for a game and then have the developer immediately hold out its hand for more cash to round out that game. I wouldn't mind paying $10 for a game engine and then selecting content from a menu, but if I've paid $50-60, the game had better be complete. It turned me off that BioWare was offering a DLC on the day the game was released (for those of us who didn't buy the steam edition). I just paid full price and now I already have to pay more to get all the available content? No thank you.

This was EA's doing more than likely, not Bioware.

[Ghurshog]

At the end of the day you pay for what is in the box or "on the disk". If you dont want to pay for it, simply don't.

At the end of the day if you don't like the buisness model dont buy the product.

Your entitled to your opinion not to more content.

I would like more value for my money, but I also know that if I feel I was burned by a purchase I wont buy from them again that is how a free market works.

You have the power to make your feelings known. Do it with your buying behaviors instead of complaining.

[LFDog]

The game is complete without the DLC. Really. It is.



As for advertising within the game? - pure evil.

[DLC On The Disc]

I guess the solution is clear.



Save the money you would spend on quality DLC and invest in a better computer so you can just pirate everything.

[VanDraegon]

smelph wrote...

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. 

A nice response smelph, thank you. While i disagree with your opinions of the costs it is nice to see a well thought out, rational and polite response.

horang wrote...

 has the obligation to make the company
profitable.  The price is appropriate so long as the market will bare
it.  Right now the complaints being voiced on these boards and on the
blogs are the symptoms of market groaning under the weight of the
price. 

The complaints of disaffected forum posters and bloggers is not indicative of the gaming community as a
whole. Only a small percentage of gamers visit forums. I saw a news release a few days ago saying that DLC for Dragon Age had generated $1,000,000 already and that was just the console downloads.

The market will bear the costs. Gaming is a luxury for us and and our money can always be better spent elsewhere but we continue to indulge ourselves in our favorite pastimes..

Modifié par VanDraegon, 19 novembre 2009 - 01:30 .

[Dauphin2]

A few points:



1) There is a completely free Storage bin addon in the user mods section. So the assertion that you have to pay to get storage is false.



2) The game is in no way incomplete without the DLCs. You don't *need* Shale, nor do you need the keep (See #1 above).



Whether they are worth their price, is of course questionable, but saying the game was incomplete without them, is patently false.

[mbchudno]

bunch of winning BS... there are plenty of companies who don't resort to stupid crap like 0-day DLCs. Stardock is one of them for example. And they price their games in reasonable fashion as well. What does EA expects when they price their games at 100+ dollars (including 0-day DLC price). Of cause people will start pirating them. I bough DA, ME and all DLC and packs being old Bioware fun and having reasonable income, but to be honest, after this trick with DLC for DA am not so sure about their next game...

[Livemmo]

I was promised food and thought when I entered this thread.

[GravityParade]

Food for thought? More like chewing gum.

[crusader8463]

I refuse to buy DLC because it has to date, been nothing but content that should have been in the game in the first place. Because greedy companies have realized people are too un-willing/stupid to think before they buy and are willing to pay for cut content we find our selves with things like the DLC launched with this game. I could see them releasing something a few months after the game came out, but to have DLC on the very day the game came out after it had been delayed
for 6 months, come on EA you have been doing so well to not appear as the greedy evil empire you once where.


I grew up with expansion packs for games -- the first kind of DLC for games some may say-- and they actually added something to a game past it's release that was worth money. But with the crap that is being shoved out the door to be nickle and dimmed to us, it is just a slap in the face to anyone who actually takes the time to think about what it is they are being charged for. I think what makes me sad the most, is that because people are so willing to take stuff like this and actualy thank companies for being so generious to bend them over while they rob their wallets it just means we are going to see more and more games that are going to launch with cut out content to be sold back to us at a premium a few weeks/months later.


Yes it is a lot of work to make this stuff, and I'm not trying to belittle the fine folks who have to work to make the stuff, but as a consumer that shouldn't and doesn't matter to me, I'm buying the same product whether it took 300 people 10 years or 2 guys a weekend to make it, it is the same product ether way.

Modifié par crusader8463, 18 novembre 2009 - 09:12 .

[Livemmo]

Obviously releasing DLC on day 1 was a slap in the face. I'm sure we all can agree on this. I highly doubt EA will be making that mistake again. Now, instead of having new content instantly, they'll throw it in the back room for a few months then release it. Either way, you're going to pay for it or just do without. With that said, nobody is forcing you to purchase anything and you know this very well. The FACT is, like it or not, companies arent going to just stop doing something thats making them money.

[Habelo]

Omfg sigh...



The gaming industry used to be beautiful. Now there is almost only greed and people actually support it lol.