251 réponses à ce sujet

[hangmans tree]

Lots of noise here...

Let me ask you this: anyone played The Witcher? Am sure many of you did. How much did you pay for extra content (two mini adventures few hours of lenght)?

None, they were to download for free.

What is CDPs stance against piracy, DRMs? Make better loyalty programs (and games/content of course) that will accually work in favour.



My opinion: BIO should drop EA and look for something else in the market, get out of the box containing them (like the article said - broken system). Create gamers friendly policy (some steps has been taken, but still...), and maybe the weight of dependancy on payable addons wont be a problem anymore. Piracy likewise.



http://social.biowar...236801/1#238674

[marshalleck]

Bioware can't just "drop" EA. EA freaking owns Bioware. Like, literally.

[hangmans tree]

unHoly mother of .... I didnt know that! D:

Modifié par hangmans tree, 19 novembre 2009 - 01:28 .

[Raxxman]

here's the thing that I've got against DLC.



2 DLCs were distrubuted a launch. They've required large amounts of manpower and time. Manpower and time that should of been spent fixing the actual game and adding a level polish that's present in the 2 other recent big releases MW2 and AC2.



They're milking the cash cow in utero, and that's just morbid.

[lv427]

I have no problem with the way Bioware's handled DLC. I don't understand the complaints for what basically amounts to an hours worth of entertainment vs the cost of a super value meal at a fast food franchise. I've already gotten more than my money's worth with DA:O. I say bring on the DLC. Maybe I won't buy everything they put out, but I certainly won't complain about a business model that could help contribute to there being a sequel and save me from an unhealthy meal at the same time.

[maelstrome]

I have no problem buying DLC content, but like any game or expansion, I will look at reviews before I buy and not just blindly click 'download' like a lackey.



No, what gets my blood boiling is the DRM. Its because of digital restrictions that I do not intend on purchasing any more DLC packs for Dragon Age. [or I may purchase them and download the cracked version for actual use]

[hangmans tree]

http://social.biowar...236801/1#238674

^about DRM...

[SheffSteel]

If you want to support Bioware, buy DLC for DA:O.

If you are opposed to DLC on principle, you already know what to do.

If you are suspicious about day one DLC, find out more about why it came to be available before forming an opinion. Please.

[deadrockstar]

With a game like DA:O I can't really complain about DLC. It is a stunningly long and deep experience that loses nothing if you don't want to purchase DLC.



I do feel robbed a bit with Warden's Keep though. I simply don't think it is worth half of its cost, nevermind $7. That's my opinion, I'm not ratting on anyone who feels differently. I am very interested in purchasing additional DLC for DA:O, but I will be making sure I'm getting my money's worth first.



Shale is deffinitely worth paying for in my eyes, though $15 is a little too steep. Good job Shale comes with every new purchase, I don't see many people purchasing second-hand shelling that amount out though.



So yes, I am waiting with huge anticipation for new DLC to appear, but I will be keeping a very close watch on the pricing. That would be my feedback to EA - you're looking for a model to help bolster revenue over the lifespan of a title so you can continue to support it and perhaps make a dent in the hit from piracy, so don't price things quite as highly otherwise it may be counter-productive. I think most of us are not against DLC as long as the value is there.

[Trajan60]

I am all for DLC as long as the price is right and it's quality content. Not some rushed out gimmick intented to milk the cash cow that games have become. However, putting an NPC in your party camp that essentially acts as a digital salesman is tacky. Even for the bastion of capitalistic greed that EA has become. Having said that, I like how DLC adds replay value to an existing purchase and I look forward to DLC that Bioware has in store for Dragon Age.

Modifié par Trajan60, 19 novembre 2009 - 04:43 .

[Exodus]

What this DLC has taught me is to wait and find out exactly what I will get before I ever make a purchase from Bioware. The plug-in NPC's who will lure us down the 'I am in dire need' and then come up with the 'but you need to download with this one time purchase blah blah' is what I'm thinking we can expect with every subsequent patch. This is what satan did with adam and the apple.(only joking guys)



Honestly though I would rather purchase an expansion that expands upon the world and opens it up more. I've read the books in anticipation for this game and they have a plethora of source material to call upon(good job David!). Warden's Keep had a neat little story and Stone Prisoner offers you a great character that's as dry as the water content of a brick. This is great but think about how much those two dlc cost. How often are we going to see DLC? How much can we really expect to get out of DLC if these two are the standards? It's rubbish. I'm going to come back 6 months from now to play another DLC that's about as content-full as warden's keep or stone prisoner? Hell no.



Expansions please. Allow us to continue playing the game after we complete the main story. Continuity. I'd hate to have to revert to a save just to experience content.

[Mouton_Alpha]

- RPGs like this require huge amounts of work and resources to make

- Western RPGs are not that profitable genre (compared to all the other crap, like MMos, FPSs, RTSs etc.)

- Many great developers died over the years

- Gaming market is not getting any better



Thus, I am ok with Bioware trying to make a living this way.



BUT



Please make it more discreet next time. "Premium Content", DLC peddlers in the camp - this bullcrap must go.

[Ickabod27]

If a game is good then they can create and sell DLC because the public will pay for it.  If a game sucks then no one is going to buy it.

Quality determines the market.  DAO is a quality game and while the first DLC might have been a little short, it was still a part of a great game that compelled us all to buy it.  Now considering the length a lot of people will most likely wait to hear how Ostagar plays out on length, but in the end if it's quality like the rest of DA then people will pay for it.

In the end people speak with their wallets, and unless they are stupid they don't hand money over for something they don't feel is worth their money.  If anything is going to come out of all this microtransaction stuff, it's that competition for that DLC money is going to get tougher thus inproving the quality of what is offered.  Have faith in the free market, in the long run we as consumers win if companies have ways to try and get money from us.  If they aren't going to get paid, they won't make games of any quality and we'll all be playing bejewled or some crap.

[BlueEyes_Austin]

Lowlander wrote...

LFDog wrote...

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. 

You are mis remembering a lot. Modules in the '80s were about $5. I still have some. The Giants series for instance were $5 each. And while they were a series. Each module took multiple sessions to play through.

Even on a computer there were lengthy enough as many of these have conversions in NWN and I have played them again and they have 10+ hours even in conversion.

This DLC is nothing like a module or a series of modules. It is tiny bits of the game clipped out and sold back to you for extra money. I find it offensive.

Five bucks in the mid 1980s would be 10-12 dollars today.

[Akka le Vil]

Quality determines the market.

If only...

[sugasugaki]

I have no problem with DLC, actually.

I also have no problem with DLC included with the game at launch. One reason why they made Shale a free DLC is to discourage sales from the used-games market, which is smart. I aplaud them for it. That's why shale is so expensive ($15) relative to other DLC. They need to take measure to encourage people buying games new, so this is a shrewd approach. Many games do that lately.

What I do detest is that DLC is used to make additional money, for content that should've already been in the game to begin with. For example, my 2h warrior has no tier 7 greatsword to use... I have to buy Warden's Keep for that. That's greedy and unacceptable to me. Tier 7 gear should be a part of the vanilla experience, without having to buy supplemental DLC. In that sense, I feel like I'm getting an incomplete game, and being nickel and dimed. So out of principle I refuse to buy Warden's Keep, because to me that buy's into their money-grubbing approach.

My other gripe about DLC is that quite simply, it doesn't seem worth it. Suppose Bioware makes DLC that includes a new companion and dialog? I'd buy it in a heartbeat. But DLC that advertises "new armor! reskinned sword!" isn't getting my money.They're milking their dedicated fanbase, which just strikes me as wrong.

Modifié par sugasugaki, 19 novembre 2009 - 06:05 .

[Arsaidh]

Something to keep in mind: A publicly-traded for-profit company is legally obligated to try to generate as much revenue as possible. Shareholders don't care about "artistry" or "being true to the fans" or even about "PC versus console." They want the biggest possible return on their investment. You can't really fault EA or BioWare for trying to monetize their intellectual properties as much as reasonably possible; they don't have a choice.

And, of course, it's not immoral to want to make money from your labor. Lots of people worked damn hard to make Dragon Age: Origins. They're entitled to get paid for that, and to keep working. Where do you think that money comes from? The promise of a revenue stream means less fear of layoffs— and if you've ever worked in the software industry, you know layoffs are an ever-present threat.

I really loathe the ridiculous sense of entitlement I get from some self-described "fans" when their words essentially translate as "I really like X developer, and I've purchased their games in the past, so now they owe me!"

[macayle]

HighlandBerserkr wrote...

Screw EA, Bioware should partner with Square Enix:P

that would be kinda hard since EA owns bioware

[Sereaph502]

Back before DLC became popular, you'd see a lot more games getting full expansion packs that people would gladly buy.



Now that DLC is running rampant, you see less and less games getting full expansions, but a boatload of DLC.



Curious, isn't it?



Not to say I hate DLC, but putting cheap $10 5 minute add-ons in place of a 5-10+ hour expansion pack that can possibly extend the story or add new cool things is pretty dissapointing.

[sugasugaki]

Arsaidh wrote...

Something to keep in mind: A publicly-traded for-profit company is legally obligated to try to generate as much revenue as possible. Shareholders don't care about "artistry" or "being true to the fans" or even about "PC versus console." They want the biggest possible return on their investment. You can't really fault EA or BioWare for trying to monetize their intellectual properties as much as reasonably possible; they don't have a choice.

Of course, Bioware/EA has every right time maximize their monetary investment. Which is why I believe DLC that is lackluster shouldn't be purchased, which would show that mediocre DLC isn't a good ROI. They can try all they want, I hope they just fail so that they either a) make more compelling DLC or stick to focusing on an expansion.

[romankalik]

hangmans tree wrote...

Let me ask you this: anyone played The Witcher?

Indeed. A rather decent attempt at bringing Geralt of Rivia and his dark fantasy world to life, and at the same time, full of pretty stupid approaches to sex (so, every woman has big breasts, and every third wants to sleep with you - and you have cards for it! Collect them all... and people wonder why people talk about sexism in fantasy gaming), and overuse of rapid-action combat as opposed to, you know... multiple choices and approaches to the same situation, thus allowing you to actually play the role you want and influence the world around you with more than just a sword. The Witcher was a good first attempt, and I enjoyed playing it, but it had several glaring issues.

hangmans tree wrote...

Am sure many of you did. How much did you pay for extra content (two mini adventures few hours of lenght)?
None, they were to download for free.

You mean those two proof-of-concept adventures, one being purely a display of what one can do with creating content for the game, the other something two people seemingly whipped together in their spare time, talented as they might have been?

Both were zero economic investment, and were just a matter of making the Witcher community a bit more active, modding-wise. If you wish to compare that to a team of people paid wages spefically to produce DLC's, who have further project expenses beyond adding a couple of 3D models and writing some basic dialogue, and who are there to produce revenue to both developer (Bioware) and publisher (EA), this being a business for making money, after all...

Apples and oranges, my friend. Apples and oranges.

hangmans tree wrote...

What is CDPs stance against piracy, DRMs? Make better loyalty programs (and games/content of course) that will accually work in favour.

I appreciate CDP's loyalty to their customer base and fan community, and that they gave the customers who bought the Witcher as-is the ability to download the major enhancement pack for free. That said, Bioware is just as loyal, gave the customers and fan base a modding toolset that can provide the community with professional-grade content for years to come, and guess what? Dragon Age doesn't actually have any of the annoying or intrusive DRM we hate so much!

SheffSteel wrote...

If you want to support Bioware, buy DLC for DA:O.
If you are opposed to DLC on principle, you already know what to do.
If
you are suspicious about day one DLC, find out more about why it came
to be available before forming an opinion. Please.

Indeed, couldn't agree more. The game is complete as -is. More than complete. It's an amazing and satisfying experience that I am enjoying immensely. Crying foul over the fact that other games have cut content to publish it later as DLC (Fallout 3 comes to mind - but then, Bethesda is evil nowadays) is pretty silly in my eyes, but hey, up to you, guys. You don't want to buy DLC's, don't. The game is complete as-is. No one is ripping you off.

So those crying foul about that, chill.

Warden's Keep could've been better, sure, and isn't that much value for the money, but I can live with it. Stone Prisoner, on the other hand, is pure joy, and is freely available to anyone who buys a new retail copy. So yes, secondhand purchasers, this makes it less profitable for you to buy the game used. Call it fair, unfair, as you wish. The digital content is not a physical product, but is rather licenced content, limited per individual purchaser. As it stands, I find it a fair deal that a company rewards people who buy the game new, without any undue hassle, and gets at least some profit from secondhand purchasers.

As for them being Day 1 DLC's... how soon people forget the fact that the game was delayed for a couple months due to the console versions (PS3, I'm looking at you!). And how soon people forget that before the game was delayed, there was little to no information on the DLC's. We got them on Day 1 because they were finished by this time. Had the game been released as originally planned, we would have gotten them after release, and over time. Instead, the DLC team went to work, the larger product team moved on, with some staying behind to polish the game a bit, making the game slightly better overall.

So yeah, it ended up being bad timing. Happens. It wasn't a ripoff, though - it was content that added to an already complete game.

As for my personal opinion on DLC's... Anyone here remember the Tales of the Sword Coast expansion for Baldur's Gate? The one that was basically three completely separate adventures rolled into one. The one most people liked, but not everyone liked all the parts. This "expansion" could have, and should have, been broken into several parts so that people would have bought what they want to buy. You want a dungeon crawl and loot? Here you go. Storyline and lots of dialogue? Here's one for you, too. A bit of both? We have that.

That's the DLC model as it should be, and Bioware's trying to do that so far. Yes, it does indeed mean that when you buy all of them, you end up paying more than you would have paid for a full expansion with the same amount of game content. But it's still a better model for all involved, when the players aren't manipulated and being lied to (you listening, there, Bethesda, evil demon that you now are?).

And here's another rub... the PC market, due to piracy, the growth of MMO's and casual games, and the migration of most young gamers (meaning most gamers) to consoles, is in a bad spot. Expansion packs were never a very profitable affair, and with a lot of cost overheads that are difficult to justify for content that isn't going to bring in anything close to the original game's profit. DLC's are easier to make, easier to sell, and if consoles have proven one thing, it's that gamers will pay more when hooked over time.

As long as the developers/publishers aren't cheating me by cutting out game content to sell it to me later, I'll buy DLC's, making informed choices as I do so. That may mean I won't enjoy everything they have to offer, but it will mean I'll be buying more of what I want, rather than a package that also includes what I don't want. That's more power to the consumer right there.

And as things stand, that may be the only business model that will make non-casual games more economically justified on the PC.

[the_one_54321]

hangmans tree wrote...

Lots of noise here...
Let me ask you this: anyone played The Witcher? Am sure many of you did. How much did you pay for extra content (two mini adventures few hours of lenght)?
None, they were to download for free.
What is CDPs stance against piracy, DRMs? Make better loyalty programs (and games/content of course) that will accually work in favour.

My opinion: BIO should drop EA and look for something else in the market, get out of the box containing them (like the article said - broken system). Create gamers friendly policy (some steps has been taken, but still...), and maybe the weight of dependancy on payable addons wont be a problem anymore. Piracy likewise.

http://social.biowar...236801/1#238674

i agree 100%. i have nothing else to add.

[Ezohiguma]

If you're "opposed" then don't buy it. That simple.



Companies asking you to pay for a product is bad?



LMAO!



If people want something they will pay for it, if they don't want something they won't pay for it. Welcome to a free market.