183 réponses à ce sujet

[Chamucks Deluxe]

The price can't be an issue, like people come on... Once again 5 dollars is nothing.

DLC is the issue, in all honesty. I don't care what the DLC costs, I don't really want DLC I would much, much rather enjoy an awesome new expansion pack. Give me a quest, not a mission. Give me a loot raid, not a solid loot. I want a branch of the storyline, not a wrinkle in its armpit.

This is what I would love to see, and if 5 bucks from my DLC's goes into funding a couple expansions then hell yeah I'll doll it out whole heartedly. This is why I really want an answer on the odds of an expansion coming.

[eyesofastorm]

TomBrokaw wrote...

Bottom line your understanding of economics is infantile at best.

Ok Tom.  We all tremble in the presence of your intellect.

Chamucks Deluxe wrote...

The price can't be an issue, like people come on... Once again 5 dollars is nothing.
DLC is the issue, in all honesty. I don't care what the DLC costs, I don't really want DLC I would much, much rather enjoy an awesome new expansion pack. Give me a quest, not a mission. Give me a loot raid, not a solid loot. I want a branch of the storyline, not a wrinkle in its armpit.
This is what I would love to see, and if 5 bucks from my DLC's goes into funding a couple expansions then hell yeah I'll doll it out whole heartedly. This is why I really want an answer on the odds of an expansion coming.

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? 

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 20 novembre 2009 - 02:11 .

[Chamucks Deluxe]

eyesofastorm wrote...

TomBrokaw wrote...

Bottom line your understanding of economics is infantile at best.

Ok Tom.  We all tremble in the presence of your intellect.

Chamucks Deluxe wrote...

The price can't be an issue, like people come on... Once again 5 dollars is nothing.
DLC is the issue, in all honesty. I don't care what the DLC costs, I don't really want DLC I would much, much rather enjoy an awesome new expansion pack. Give me a quest, not a mission. Give me a loot raid, not a solid loot. I want a branch of the storyline, not a wrinkle in its armpit.
This is what I would love to see, and if 5 bucks from my DLC's goes into funding a couple expansions then hell yeah I'll doll it out whole heartedly. This is why I really want an answer on the odds of an expansion coming.

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? 

When the cow stops giving milk you can eat it.

Modifié par Chamucks Deluxe, 20 novembre 2009 - 02:13 .

[TomBrokaw]

My advice is to just stop playing this and move on to Assasin's 2 and come back a year later to pick and choose what dlc you want.



If you don't want anything GTA 5 will be on the horizon.

[Chamucks Deluxe]

TomBrokaw wrote...

My advice is to just stop playing this and move on to Assasin's 2 and come back a year later to pick and choose what dlc you want.

If you don't want anything GTA 5 will be on the horizon.

You mean "AGENT" right?

[timmah30]

well you look at gta 4, they came out with not 1 but 2 expansions. they didn't dabble much (if at all with a lil dlc here, a lil dlc there)

Now i'm gonna get Wardens Keep soon as well as the new dlc, just simply because, <>, i'm enjoying the game. When the day is over and done with, isn't that what its all about?

Dragons Age is a game FINALLY, I can see my self playing on a daily basis, ofcourse gotta have breaks in between but unlike most which after they'll get beaten, and forgotten about (i can only name one game i own that have beaten but keep playing and thats Heavenly Sword). but i'll always come back to dragons age. i need something that will eat up another 15-20 hrs of my life! <>

[Shannara13]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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?

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

Obsidian games are amazing. Unfinished but amazing. Its just really too bad that they got stuck under the thumb of Atari which believe Holiday release> finished product

[MrGOH]

My concern with the DLC scheme is that it seems, so far, to not really capitalize on what, to me, is the primary strength of Bioware RPG games - interesting, branching narratives and character development. This is difficult to provide in bite-sized chunks of DLC. I am heartened that Return to Ostagar is said to offer this to some extent - but we'll have to wait and see if it's really enough to satisfy.



I don't deny that DA:O has fun combat gameplay, and I welcome more of it. But I would be much more satisfied with bigger DLC with more gameplay and interesting self-contained stories. I'd be willing to pay more for it as well.

[ransompendragon]

I confess, I didn't read the whole thread. But the topic is interesting; I find that, in general, there seems to be a willingness on the part of the masses (and I don't see myself as anymore special than the masses)--to part with their money for things they used to get for free or a reasonable price (bottled water, anyone?).

My hobby is PC gaming so I spend my little free time with that (and surfing the net obviously) and my money on games and hardware. But I don't have cable TV. I have the obligatory flat panel with surround sound equipment and a set of rabbit ears on top. I use the cheapest Netflix plan and see all the movies or TV I could want. I don't have a cell phone plan because every year I payed more for fewer features and features I was never going to use. I use a tracphone and make calls the once or twice a year I have to go out of town on business or to visit the folks. I don't play MMO's (MUD's were soooo addictive--but the price point was great).

The cost-benefit-value analysis is really a personal choice. When the choice becomes imbalanced for me I will quit paying--and it isn't about the money in my case--the perceived value decreases pretty rapidly. I have a boatload of games I haven't played and then there are used games, old games (good old games!) and of course the whole world of Linux and open source games. And nethack.

Will I buy the DLC? Probably. But I am holding off. With Oblivion I managed to wait until Knights of the Nine came out and got it all at once.

Of course, if I don't quit reading these forums I will never finish my first playthrough!

cheers,
ransom

[sophee]

i earn $5 when i burp. bring on more DLC.

[dmhalsey]

For me I like dlc I don't want to wait 6 months to a year for an expansion. I have been wanting to play again with a different origin but I did most of the quests the first time so for me this new dlc will give that extra reason to play again. Plus I'm a sucker for anything with the Bioware logo, because so far every game they've made I've loved so I tend to buy from them with little hesitation.

[Dnarris]

Come on.....

Look at what EA as a company are doing with games and their DLC.

A great example of the changes is in a comparison with Sims 2 and Sims 3.

Sims 2 was a vastly more complete game out of the box than Sims 3. Sims 2 you started out with several towns to play in a huge inventory of items to place into your Sim world.

Sims 3 gives you a single town to start with unless you get a free promo code for another one or you pay extra to purchase any more. They limit you to nearly 1/3 the items that you had in Sims 2 and the only way to get more is through downloadable content or retextured items that players have made.

Yeah, EA is succeeding with their DLC, but all they've manage to do is figured out another way to get more money from the consumer.

Yeah, you can buy it if you want and leave it if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they've "slimed" down other products to make DLC more imperative or desirable.

I think in the long run microtransactions hurt the consumer more than fufill them especially if you see more "slimed" down product without a change in retail box prices.

Modifié par Dnarris, 20 novembre 2009 - 03:18 .

[LenaMarie]

Personally, Im not against DLC. Im against POS DLC.  If Bioware put out DLC like the later ones from Oblivion and Fallout 3s and GTA 4s I would have no problem, but they have a track record of putting out rubbish DLC, thats barely worth 1$ 

Where Bethesda learned Horse Armor is a big no no, Bioware still hasnt learned the 'Horse Armor Lession'.

[jadedjim]

why waste your time playing video games then? no one likes paying extra for things. its a business just like everything else is.DLC enhances the games (some more than others) you wanna play? you gotta pay like the rest of us. if i want it, i'm gonna get it simple as that. to each their own. know what i mean?

if gripe is needed, point it at mmorpg's which are a complete waste of time and money in my opinion. yeah the social aspect is a nice thought, but, they're so addictive you cant take your mind off it. then there's the whole thing with seeing someone else with an item or a buiild that you are really envious of you become obsessed with getting the item of finishing quest x. that stuff is crazy.its only a game but when it begins to consume your life and your time and your money,then yes i would say you have a problem.

Modifié par jadedjim, 20 novembre 2009 - 03:31 .

[Cocomoe]

Dnarris wrote...

Come on.....

Look at what EA as a company are doing with games and their DLC.

A great example of the changes is in a comparison with Sims 2 and Sims 3.

Sims 2 was a vastly more complete game out of the box than Sims 3. Sims 2 you started out with several towns to play in a huge inventory of items to place into your Sim world.

Sims 3 gives you a single town to start with unless you get a free promo code for another one or you pay extra to purchase any more. They limit you to nearly 1/3 the items that you had in Sims 2 and the only way to get more is through downloadable content or retextured items that players have made.

Yeah, EA is succeeding with their DLC, but all they've manage to do is figured out another way to get more money from the consumer.

Yeah, you can buy it if you want and leave it if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they've "slimed" down other products to make DLC more imperative or desirable.

I think in the long run microtransactions hurt the consumer more than fufill them especially if you see more "slimed" down product without a change in retail box prices.

Agreed, why release a complete game when you can still charge $60 for it with less content and then nickle and dime you gamers with content that should've been in the game to begin with.  It's one thing to come out with complete new stores like say Fallout or a combo of new stories and enhancements like NWN series.  It's like a bad telemarketing commercial, buy the game for $60 but wait for an additional $7 you can get an ingame storage box, and for another $5 your can get a new branch to the existing story....  What happened to complete games.

[Dnarris]

Cocomoe wrote...

Dnarris wrote...

Come on.....

Look at what EA as a company are doing with games and their DLC.

A great example of the changes is in a comparison with Sims 2 and Sims 3.

Sims 2 was a vastly more complete game out of the box than Sims 3. Sims 2 you started out with several towns to play in a huge inventory of items to place into your Sim world.

Sims 3 gives you a single town to start with unless you get a free promo code for another one or you pay extra to purchase any more. They limit you to nearly 1/3 the items that you had in Sims 2 and the only way to get more is through downloadable content or retextured items that players have made.

Yeah, EA is succeeding with their DLC, but all they've manage to do is figured out another way to get more money from the consumer.

Yeah, you can buy it if you want and leave it if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they've "slimed" down other products to make DLC more imperative or desirable.

I think in the long run microtransactions hurt the consumer more than fufill them especially if you see more "slimed" down product without a change in retail box prices.

Agreed, why release a complete game when you can still charge $60 for it with less content and then nickle and dime you gamers with content that should've been in the game to begin with.  It's one thing to come out with complete new stores like say Fallout or a combo of new stories and enhancements like NWN series.  It's like a bad telemarketing commercial, buy the game for $60 but wait for an additional $7 you can get an ingame storage box, and for another $5 your can get a new branch to the existing story....  What happened to complete games.

It's up to the consumer to make sure that they are getting the worth of their money out of what they buy in the end. If the consumer wants to turn a blind eye to practices such as that it's not only the companies fault, but that of the consumer as well.

DA:O seemed pretty fair out of the box for what you got, I don't agree with the DLC prices, because I judge it based on the amount of content and how much I'm really getting for my money in comparison for what I paid for the retail box. If I pay $50 for the retail box and I buy $50 worth of DLC over time, I expect to have received at least as much content that I got from the retail box....if not then I feel my money isn't being well spent. I mean Warden's Keep and Stone Prisoner cost $22 if you had to buy them and it got you one more character and 3 quests. I find the items not worth mentioning since actual currency for items seems like a silly concept to me. Paying almost 50% of the retail price for an extra character and 3 quests doesn't seem like my dollar is amounting up to what it was when I bought the retail box.

But as the economic expert said with his original post EA will charge what the market will bear. I just find it unfortunate that it bears the current costs.

[Lucy Glitter]

You know why I don't like it? Because they ask you to pay for it in game. That's all.

[purplesunset]

Dnarris wrote...

Come on.....

Look at what EA as a company are doing with games and their DLC.

A great example of the changes is in a comparison with Sims 2 and Sims 3.

Sims 2 was a vastly more complete game out of the box than Sims 3. Sims 2 you started out with several towns to play in a huge inventory of items to place into your Sim world.

Sims 3 gives you a single town to start with unless you get a free promo code for another one or you pay extra to purchase any more. They limit you to nearly 1/3 the items that you had in Sims 2 and the only way to get more is through downloadable content or retextured items that players have made.

Yeah, EA is succeeding with their DLC, but all they've manage to do is figured out another way to get more money from the consumer.

Yeah, you can buy it if you want and leave it if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they've "slimmed" down other products to make DLC more imperative or desirable.

I think in the long run microtransactions hurt the consumer more than fufill them especially if you see more "slimmed" down product without a change in retail box prices.

A fair point, and one worth thinking about.

The question is ...Is there evidence that DA was deliberately "slimmed down" to increase perceived value of the DLC program? It's debatable, but considering the time spent to make this game, it seemed like Bioware put a TON into the finished product anyway.

I don't know if the  Sims 2 vs. gutted , "slimmed down" Sims 3 comparison would apply to DA.

[TileToad]

Oh, c'mon, would any of you deny some poor street junky his/her DLC.. err.. fix I mean? No? Thought so!

It's elementary Watson.

[Creature 1]

For those saying, "Buy it, it's just $5," if I bought everything I might conceivably want because it just cost $5 I'd probably be spending $20/day on books, lunch out, coffee, songs on iTunes, DLC . . . It doesn't sound like much but that's over $7000 a year. If you're making a good amount of money and that fits into your dining/entertainment budget, that's fine, but don't think $5 here and there does not add up.



I can afford to spend $5 on DLC, but I can also afford to light a $5 bill on fire and watch it burn. The question is, what is the most profitable way to spend my $5? Burning a $5 bill doesn't give me $5 of entertainment, and I doubt purchasing the DLC would either. So I'll save my money until something more appealing comes along.

[Dnarris]

purplesunset wrote...

Dnarris wrote...

Come on.....

Look at what EA as a company are doing with games and their DLC.

A great example of the changes is in a comparison with Sims 2 and Sims 3.

Sims 2 was a vastly more complete game out of the box than Sims 3. Sims 2 you started out with several towns to play in a huge inventory of items to place into your Sim world.

Sims 3 gives you a single town to start with unless you get a free promo code for another one or you pay extra to purchase any more. They limit you to nearly 1/3 the items that you had in Sims 2 and the only way to get more is through downloadable content or retextured items that players have made.

Yeah, EA is succeeding with their DLC, but all they've manage to do is figured out another way to get more money from the consumer.

Yeah, you can buy it if you want and leave it if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they've "slimmed" down other products to make DLC more imperative or desirable.

I think in the long run microtransactions hurt the consumer more than fufill them especially if you see more "slimmed" down product without a change in retail box prices.

A fair point, and one worth thinking about.

The question is ...Is there evidence that DA was deliberately "slimmed down" to increase perceived value of the DLC program? It's debatable, but considering the time spent to make this game, it seemed like Bioware put a TON into the finished product anyway.

I don't know if the  Sims 2 vs. gutted , "slimmed down" Sims 3 comparison would apply to DA.

I agree. As I've stated before I feel that DA:O was a fair purchase for what you got out of the box. However when I look at what you receive from Warden's Keep and Stone Prisoner for $22 I cannot say that I feel that the pricing is fair to the consumer when compared to the $50 retail box price.

It seems to depreciate the value of the money you spent for the retail box when you're spending nearly 50% of the retail box price to get a signficantly smaller amount of content assuming you did have to purchase that content.

I use the Sims comparison, because it's the same publisher and referring to what I would consider unscrupulous marketing practices. In this game they gave a very fair retail box price, but are , from this consumers view, overcharing for their DLC when looking beyond what the market is currently bearing.

[ValentineHeart82]

In short, if people buy it they'll just keep doing it. This is the argument many Pirates give for downloading DLC and seeding games from companies they don't like, either way it's us Legitimate Customers that get shafted.