183 réponses à ce sujet

[Chamucks Deluxe]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Chamucks Deluxe wrote...

You will waist 5 dollars on a lot of things that are half as well crafted as any Bioware DLC or product for that matter. If you love it, how can you put a price on it? The economics add up for me personally because, to go play shinny on Sunday nights is 10 bucks for 2 hours. Swimming pool is 8 bucks for 2 hours. Movies... 10 bucks for 1-2 hours. 5 dollar foot long 5 dollars. The list goes on. It makes sense to me because in the realm of entertainment its an excellent deal.

the reason i disagree with this is because i think you should be looking at the same way the companies look at it. instead of thinking "i spend this on this and i get this, and this other thing compares this way," you should be thinking "the developers have offered this, but i could get them to give me this instead if i push them for it." because that's exactly how they are looking at us, and apparently it's ok for them to do it. if they're going to try and drip dry us of what's in our wallet, we should be looking to do the same to them. that would be the way a smart consumer looks at it. that would be the way to get the most enjoyment that this company has to offer you. if it's fair trade when they do it, then it's fair trade for us to do it as well.

Your going to get nothing done. People WILL buy this DLC for 5 (five) dollars. More people will buy it than resist it and why? Because it's fair, and we like when good stuff is available at fair pricing instead of being a pain in the ass.

[the_one_54321]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...
What the hell makes you think that if DLC is not profitable that EA would even bother continuing with funding DA:O teams to make an expansion?

if EA is pushing these practices then maybe if they stay unproffitable EA will go out of business and all the good writers and designers at bioware can go work somewhere that still cares about making games instead of just making dollars.

[CarlSpackler]

Meh, OP has it right. However, you always expect to pay more comparatively for smaller portions. A 16oz bottle of coke is comparatively and considerably more expensive than a 2litre bottle. Obviously they must charge something for their time. They are professional engineers, not fans modding in their spare time. Unlike the OP I am not philisophically oposed to DLC, but I am philisophically oposed to bad DLC (not a comment on the DA DLC, just in general.) The fallout 3 addons were generally speaking (but not inclusively speaking) worth their price point (all things considered, smaller bottle of coke and all .) As many others have voiced, I do long for a true expansion, a real Bioware story moving forward. Until/unless an expansion -or exapnsive DLC- is released I likely will not be purchasing DLC. Still I am glad they are carrying through on their plans to support the game, and to those who purchase, happy gaming!

[Sledge454]

I can completely understand the anti-DLC sentiment.  Sally Struthers can feed a starving child in Africa for $0.50 a day.  This DLC is like ten starving children.

So while you're feeding the children, I'm going back to Ostagar.

[Chamucks Deluxe]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Crawling_Chaos wrote...
What the hell makes you think that if DLC is not profitable that EA would even bother continuing with funding DA:O teams to make an expansion?

if EA is pushing these practices then maybe if they stay unproffitable EA will go out of business and all the good writers and designers at bioware can go work somewhere that still cares about making games instead of just making dollars.

Why don't they do it now?
I heard once that a paycheck guaranteed every month is awesome. Don't know if its true though BECAUSE IM AN IDIOT.

[eyesofastorm]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

purplesunset wrote...

Imryll wrote...

I think both Bioware and its fans are feeling their way here. Early on I'm fairly inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. If I find myself not enjoying the DLCs--or not enough to warrant their cost--I'll stop buying them. If Bioware notices a decline in DLC sales, I'm guessing they'll adjust price and/or content to increase interest. Certainly it took Bethesda awhile to find the sweet spot for DLC for their games. No reason to think it will play out differently with Bioware.

Good post. It also shows that the best arguement that people against DLC can make is to simply not buy. Don't whine and complain, just hold on to your cash. You're chipping away at the value of DLC with each purchase you didn't make.


If you prefer one large expansion pack instead of multiple small  DLC's , then show it to Bioware by buying it if they ever choose to release a large $30 expansion pack.

Ah, but whining and complaining in coherent, intelligent ways may help to sway others into NOT buying the thimble sized offerings and more quickly sway the pendulum back towards actual expansion packs and good value for consumers. 

What the hell makes you think that if DLC is not profitable that EA would even bother continuing with funding DA:O teams to make an expansion?

Nothing, but that is a trade-off or risk that I'm willing to take.

[the_one_54321]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Crawling_Chaos wrote...
What the hell makes you think that if DLC is not profitable that EA would even bother continuing with funding DA:O teams to make an expansion?

if EA is pushing these practices then maybe if they stay unproffitable EA will go out of business and all the good writers and designers at bioware can go work somewhere that still cares about making games instead of just making dollars.

Just like Black Isle, amirite?

the people at black isle are working elsewhere now, amirite?

[newcomplex]

The issue with DLC is it isn't compatible with a RPG model. For instance, I already have beaten the game, my character has sacrificed herself to defeat a ****ing archdemon. Thats closure. What a DLC suggests is I need to reload to a earlier save, redo content I really don't care to do again, then ultimately still sacrifice my character. On top of that, the DLC is just more combat missions, more monsters to wack, and more lewts. I didn't play this game for awesome loots of addictive combat. Both are well done, but pale in comparison to RPGS built for awesome combat and loot. See borderlands or demon soul. I played it for an immserive world, and a top knotch RPG story, and probably the best done character interactions in the history of gaming. A dlc just dilutes these values while giving some random combat I don't care to play. Thanks, but no thanks, call me when the sequel comes k bioware?

[Zibon]

makeshiftwings7 wrote...

Wow, miserly much? I pay $5 for coffee and a donut, and that's only a few minutes of entertainment. It's less than half of what I pay when I go out to dinner or to go see a movie. If you're really poor or still living with your parents then $5 might be a huge deal to you, but for anyone who's making at least minimum wage it's not the heartwrenching ordeal it seems to be to you. And if $5 is such a huge chunk of your income that you can't bear to part with it, then you should probably be studying or looking for a new job rather than playing video games.

The cost isn't the point. Your vote is free but you don't go voting for any random proposal or politician just because you can. Buying every cheap DLC that comes out is basically voting for more of less value. Also I think you'll find that a coffee and donut is not for "entertainment" (plus it seems you're in the habit of paying too much for things.)



There is another problem with this DLC for a little content vs a big expansion for a lot of content. They are basically forced to make all of the gear they add overpowered so that people feel like they are actually got something out of it. For Dragon Age particularly this completely unbalances the game since powerful magical items are supposed to be very rare and difficult to get, and it even ruins the rewards for the rest of the game when you get situations like a weapon you find near the end of the game still being inferior to some DLC you picked up near the beginning.

If you prefer one large expansion pack instead of multiple small DLC's , then show it to Bioware by buying it if they ever choose to release a large $30 expansion pack.

Why would this ever happen? Why would the publisher want to fund development of an additional 20-40 hours of playtime when they could hedge their costs over 5 separate hours of playtime?

[newcomplex]

The issue with DLC is it isn't compatible with a RPG model. For instance, I already have beaten the game, my character has sacrificed herself to defeat a ****ing archdemon. Thats closure. What a DLC suggests is I need to reload to a earlier save, redo content I really don't care to do again, then ultimately still sacrifice my character. On top of that, the DLC is just more combat missions, more monsters to wack, and more lewts. I didn't play this game for awesome loots of addictive combat. Both are well done, but pale in comparison to RPGS built for awesome combat and loot. See borderlands or demon soul. I played it for an immserive world, and a top knotch RPG story, and probably the best done character interactions in the history of gaming. A dlc just dilutes these values while giving some random combat I don't care to play. Thanks, but no thanks, call me when the sequel comes k bioware?

[the_one_54321]

Chamucks Deluxe wrote...

Why don't they do it now?
I heard once that a paycheck guaranteed every month is awesome. Don't know if its true though BECAUSE IM AN IDIOT.

they can worry about their paychecks, and i can worry about pushing the industry toward producing games in a manner i find fair and acceptable.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 novembre 2009 - 10:13 .

[the_one_54321]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...
Nothing, but that is a trade-off or risk that I'm willing to take.

because no content is better than mini content and possible future large content, lovely

that post is just blatant fallacy. you're backpedaling
over your own argument in the same sentence that you're making it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 novembre 2009 - 10:13 .

[Bluto Blutarskyx]

purplesunset wrote...

I've been reading through a lot of these threads and a huge percentage of the arguements made by the people against the DLC are due to sheer ignorance of economics.

Ignorant argument against DLC: "Why does it cost $5? $7?  It's not worth that much!" 

Because it was determinede that this was a price that many people would be willing to pay. Value isn't an inherent thing. It's not a magical thing that floats around in the air. Humans are the ones who assign value when they assess how much they would be willing to spend to obtain said object.

It's like the people who complain..."why do fat athletes get paid millions, while professors who do more important work get paid much less?" The answer is...it's your fault you idiot. If you're willing to spend x amount on sports tickets, sports t-shirts, sports boots, sports drinks etc.  then you contribute to  creating the demand and assigning the value to sports which in turn translates to higher salaries for the athletes.

If people feel that a certain DLC is worth the $5 or $7 to them, then they have the right to buy it at that price.

There. Even though I am philosophically against DLC, I see no reason whatsoever to interfere with people who want to buy it and consequently  increase the value (and possibly also increase the price depending on elasticity) of future DLC's. That's the value they assign to it, and they have the right to spend their money for it.

agreed.

i am in favor of dlc that is done as dlc and not to simply "milk" people by giving crap value, but thats a case by case (and developer by developer, and game by game, etc.) basis.

personally i still think that instead of horse armor this game should have a dlc where your party is banging coconuts together in a horse-riding-like motion when you travel on the world map. (just a little animated picture in the corner).

[the_one_54321]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...
Obsidian has really taken off and made so many amazing games /sarcasm

maybe next they'll all go work for CDProjekt and we'll all finally get lucky.

any game that gets published in the manner that the Witcher did will get purchased by me just out of principle.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 novembre 2009 - 10:18 .

[eyesofastorm]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...
Nothing, but that is a trade-off or risk that I'm willing to take.

because no content is better than mini content and possible future large content, lovely

So if Bioware passes a hat around and said, please donate money so that we may possibly use this money to give you something worthwhile in the future that you will also have to pay for at that time, you would be willing to put your money in that hat?  Because that is what it sounds like you are saying.  I love Bioware as much or more than anyone you'll find, but there has to be a cutoff point.  You can't give them a liscense and salary to create shovelware just like their parent company has become renowned for.

[Lortext]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Crawling_Chaos wrote...
What the hell makes you think that if DLC is not profitable that EA would even bother continuing with funding DA:O teams to make an expansion?

if EA is pushing these practices then maybe if they stay unproffitable EA will go out of business and all the good writers and designers at bioware can go work somewhere that still cares about making games instead of just making dollars.

- Charities don't have the funding to make blockbuster games
- Bioware did DLC for Neverwinter Nights (with Atari, before they were partnered with EA) and the pricing model wasn't really much different

[the_one_54321]

Lortext wrote...

- Charities don't have the funding to make blockbuster games
- Bioware did DLC for Neverwinter Nights (with Atari, before they were partnered with EA) and the pricing model wasn't really much different

- The Witcher

- i didnt download those either. i bought the diamond edition.

[Stanley Woo]

Hey, the_one, I don't mean to be a jerk or single you out, but you've been around a long time and I thought you could answer this question for me.



In this thread alone, let alone all the other threads in all the other forums discussing our DLC, some folks (like you) are adamant about not supporting DLC and determined to take a stand in the hopes that your gesture will influence developers and publishers to try and find a different revenue model. That's fine, that's all well and good, and you are entirely entitled to those views.



Right beside you, another forum poster is saying "I will pay whatever BioWare wants me to pay. More, more, more!" Who do we listen to? That's the question I'd like you to answer. Which one of you, both fans whose opinions have equal weight, do we as developers and publishers listen to and cater to?

[purplesunset]

Read the posts on page 2 by "eyesofastorm" and "the one 54321"

They know more about economics than me, and further illustrate how much power the consumer actually has.

We love to paint a picture of big, bad EA as if they are some entity against which we are powerless. If you think that expansion packs are more valuable than multiple small DLC's and you want expansion packs instead of DLC, the way to encourage that is to vote with your wallet.

Of course, you're still taking a gamble, as eyesofastorm pointed out above. There is no guarantee that an unsuccessful DLC program would cause Bioware to switch to expansion packs.

[the_one_54321]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

I think it would be better to have the possibility of having an expansion, rather than not having any possibility of having an expansion or any further content whatsoever.

So I suppose I would donate some money into said hat.

you know, if the DLC doesnt fly, it's possible that they may switch gears to try and get people buying more content. a full back of added stuff, or an expansion, or something along those lines, at a more reasonable price.

you cant say for certain that DLC not selling will mean that there is no future support given.

[mysticforce42]

Considering the small sum involved, I don't think it is a problem as long as I receive playable content.



Of course, if Bioware allows DLC to degenerate to "pay us $5 for this uber sword, see how shiny it is?" then I would have a problem with it.



Chances are it won't happen... unless EA does some spectacular arm twisting >.>