183 réponses à ce sujet

[cocomoe1]

purplesunset wrote...

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 he finished product anyway.

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

Good question, looks like it with the existing DLC that is out there including the new one.  Time will tell.

[Meshuganah]

DLC is fine and dandy as long as they come out with a full length expansion/sequel in a reasonable time frame. What I do not want is perpetual $5 20 minute dungeons.

[purplesunset]

cocomoe1 wrote...

purplesunset wrote...

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 he finished product anyway.

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

Good question, looks like it with the existing DLC that is out there including the new one.  Time will tell.

Look, I can conspiracy theorize with the best of them    but in this case I don't think Bioware cut back on the finished product. I mean from all accounts, even in the reviews by people who didn't love DA,  this game has loads and loads of content. I'll give Bioware the benefit of the doubt.

[metal_dawn]

the_one_54321 wrote...

purplesunset wrote...
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.

this is precisely right.

and this is precisely why i refuse to buy the DLC.

it's stupid. it's wasteful. it's benefit is disproportionately small to what you pay for it. i will not be one of those suckers. the whole world may come crashing down with the weight of all the other suckers out there who are more than happy to ruin the value of things because they are willing to just hand over their wallets instead of saying "no, not until you make it more worth my while," but i will not join in. i dont jump off the bridge just because everyone else is doing it. i am not the frog in the pot of slow boiling water.

does everyone else have a right to be one of these people? hell yes they do. making bad decisions is everyones right. but that doesnt mean i have to join in, and it certainly doesnt mean that i am not allowed to protest the systems that promote this.

you'll never see my paying for stadium tickets, and you'll never see me paying for DLC.

So, if you don't intend to enjoy any of the forthcoming DA content, why are you still here? Why is EVERY post you make some sort of crusade against DLC? It's approaching the point of being ridiculous. I guarantee you, you will not alter or wane their plans no matter how loud you cry. Perhaps you could try starting a thread and posting in all caps. 

[MarshalVaako]

Excellent discussion all around.

I'm not against DLC per say, but I have three grave concerns with DLC.

1. That developers might hold back content or even not hold back content but while making the game not design something in with the intention to design later as a DLC.

2. That instead of putting all the content into one big package aka the "expansion" they break it up into as small a portions that they can get away with to maximize profits.

3. In general I'm just leery of digital content and I much prefer my games on cd. There are quite a few issues with digital content, like the price of DLC not going down 2 years from now when the game new is 10 bucks and DLC will be 15 bucks. Plus if the company goes belly up DRM will no longer function.


I love Bioware and no Bioware game has disapponted me yet. I even enjoyed Jade Empire (which is not to say it wasn't good but alot of people didn't seem to care for it).

I will buy DLC and probably buy it again when the special GOTY edition comes out 2 years from now.

All I ask is you create DLC responsibily, price isnt as important as much as the size of the content. Think Knights of the nine and not horse armor.

Please don't forget to patch this game and future titles while your making DLC. And thats for consoles as well as PC.

Modifié par MarshalVaako, 20 novembre 2009 - 04:34 .

[purplesunset]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...
The simple truth is that they made a fully fleshed out experience straight out of the box.  A game that lasts over 20 hours MINIMUM (playing on easy, going at a fast rate, skipping as much as possible).

Indeed.

Off topic, but I must ask," is your username a Lovecraft reference by any chance?"

I'm starting to wonder about how many rpg fans are also into Lovecraft...

[wonko33]

TomBrokaw wrote...

If DLC deserves to die it will die. If people buy it and enough people don't feel as if they get enough value then people will stop buying it. It will die. If DLC detracts from the quality of games proper and value suffers there as well, people will stop buying video games and this industry will die. It's not oil, it won't survive without providing appropriate value. And the market determines appropriate value, not some nerd in his mom's basement (well he determines his minute portion).

In any case then, justice will be brought to bear. If you think DLC deserves to die, then just wait, it will. If it doesn't then you are WRONG.

There is no need to whine.
.

Nicely said,

the thing i like about dlc is that if you don't jump on it on the first day it is easy to figure out if it is worth it. It is not a big risk like buying a game because you already know if it will run (for us pc users)  and what the mechanics of the game are, also since there is less content you get a better feel for it with the reviews and the forum posts.

[Filton_Kingswood]

Just announce an XP already. Or is it because this franchise _has_ to be hegemonous across all platforms and the console crowd are holding the PC gamers back?

[the_one_54321]

metal_dawn wrote...
So, if you don't intend to enjoy any of the forthcoming DA content, why are you still here?

have a look in The Off Topic Empire group. that's why im here. also, i love bioware games.

metal_dawn wrote...
Why is EVERY post you make some sort of crusade against DLC?

because you have only read my posts in threads related to DLC. since the threads are about DLC, naturally my posts are about my thoughts on DLC.

are you singling me out because my posts are particularly striking, or persuasive, and you dont like that?

metal_dawn wrote...
Perhaps you could try starting a thread and posting in all caps. 

no thanks. i post reasonably and coherently. i'm not a jack [donkey].

Modifié par the_one_54321, 20 novembre 2009 - 05:25 .

[cocomoe1]

purplesunset wrote...

cocomoe1 wrote...

purplesunset wrote...

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 he finished product anyway.

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

Good question, looks like it with the existing DLC that is out there including the new one.  Time will tell.

Look, I can conspiracy theorize with the best of them    but in this case I don't think Bioware cut back on the finished product. I mean from all accounts, even in the reviews by people who didn't love DA,  this game has loads and loads of content. I'll give Bioware the benefit of the doubt.

What conspiracy, it's just business.  You need something to sell so remove or don't add it to the finished product, they already had the advertisment for Solider Peak in the game.

[spadger]

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.

If they are gonna set the bar at $7, they had better set the standard pretty high as well, so it has everything to do with economics, and no one have said $5 or $7 is a bad price if the content reflects it's value, something Warden's Keep had failed badly at.

[Grovermancer]

The "scarcity principle."



The famous anecdote of that woman who owned the jewelry store about to go under, so in desperation she jacked up the prices cause she was gonna close anyhow...



...AND THE STUFF STARTED SELLING!



Because with the prices raised, people apparently thought it was WORTH that. (and the subtle fear of not having what someone else will snag up)



Human beings are weak, pathetic idiotic sheep.

[Wild Maiden]

DLC released at launch time OBVIOUSLY could have been included in the game, they opted not to, as is their prerogative, but clearly they did "cut back" on the finished product. No storage chest? yeah...

[Dnarris]

spadger wrote...

If they are gonna set the bar at $7, they had better set the standard pretty high as well, so it has everything to do with economics, and no one have said $5 or $7 is a bad price if the content reflects it's value, something Warden's Keep had failed badly at.

That is certainly true. If the content value warrants $5 or $7 then by all means.

However, it is difficult to ascertain what contents value is worth. Of course you know EA is going to hedge the cost up as much as possible (I.E. $15 for Shale for those that don't have promos).

I believe if you are not receive content value of equal value when compared to the content you received for the $50 retail box price then the pricing is not set in favor of the consumer or at least with respect to the consumer.

For example, the content you receive from Warden's Keep and Stone Prisoner is comparatively short next the content of the entire game. Yet, the content you receive from those two DLC is 44% of the retail price. While providing nowhere near 44% of the value.

Logically, I cannot figure out how that could be considered a good value from a monetary view. Afterall, it would stand to say that the purchasing power of your currency had dramatically decreased from where it was when you purchased the retail box.

[Devil_Lucifer]

Legit customers also loses.
And pirates always win because they get everything for free by stealing.

The problem with DLC is, unless you are a collector who wants to collect everything, you probably won't buy it unless it appeals to you content wise.

For a DLC to be successful it needs to be appealing enough for it's price since DLC are expensive content wise.

My suggestion for bioware is to perhaps try bundling your DLC together instead of selling them seperately.
This way it will be more even for price/content.

Example.
Paying $5 for a 1h DLC content vs Paying $15 for a DLC bundle which gives at least 6h of content.

Modifié par Devil_Lucifer, 20 novembre 2009 - 05:58 .

[xIc3x]

One thing I think people forget is that the price of video games hasn't really gone up that much over time. N64 games cost as much as xbox 360 games do now (the early n64 games were stupid expensive, lol), and even on nes I'd pay 40 bucks for a new game sometimes.

DLC is a great way for the developers to make money. Honestly, with the amount of gameplay, dragon age could cost $80+ and I'd buy it. I think bioware games are a tremendous value for the money, you can't expect all the dlc to have that kind of value. Warden's keep is overpriced IMO, but I'd still buy it for the armor and storage and starfang. The new dlc is cheaper but still a bit too expensive for an hour of gameplay.

Someone said it before, but Bioware is still relatively new to dlc, and is probably trying to find the middle ground where people don't feel ripped off but they can also maximize profits. my two cents, lol .

Edit: I think the idea of 10 or 20 dollar dlc that comes for free with new copies is also a good idea, I think its kinda lame to buy used games. If you can afford a 60 dollar game you can afford 5 or 10 bucks extra to get a new copy and support your hobby. IMO at least, to each his own .

Modifié par xIc3x, 20 novembre 2009 - 06:21 .

[ABCoLD]

Beyond a rare few posts, this whole thread is ridiculous.



Why in god's name would a game company devote time to fleshing out an expansion that can be fully explored in 10 hours (sped through in 2) and sell it for $30 when they can create quality content an hour at a time and sell it for $5?



No matter which they create some imbecile is going to claim that if the original game took 40 hours to complete and cost $60 then the game obviously only costs a dollar and fifty cents per hour of content to create.



If they create a full blown expansion then invariably others will complain that they had to wait six months to a year to two years for it.



And may their divine being of choice protect them if they get it wrong, or even displease a third of their customer base with a large expansion with an extended development time. This is massive revenue loss and the problem is compounded by that third of the audience being vocal and spreading their opinion to poor unfortunate people who might not know if it's good or not but rely on these people for their information before deciding whether or not to invest a sizable amount of money into the expansion.



I for one would vastly prefer small, bite size content that I can purchase with the money I save by not buying 3 sodas in one day. Or not purchasing a 12 pack of pop to enjoy at home.



I'd rather see new content every month or two rather than be bored and give up on a game and have to come back to it every six months to a year... wondering if it's worth it to purchase the expansion or just wait another 6 months or a year for the GotY edition.



I will buy every single bit of DLC I see as long as I see it as a good value. (Which so far it all is.)



All that being said, I wouldn't mind a new DLC episodic quest line, along the size of any of the recruitment quests released as four parts with each part costing 3-5 dollars. That would be nice. Perhaps something along the lines of Warden's Keep, in terms of getting a castle/stronghold, but with more story and a more expansive final base.

[Dnarris]

When it comes down to how the content in disseminated I'd much more prefer an expansion.



1.) It's harder for a company to overprice their product this way since there are easily recognizable standards when you are purchasing. If their product is priced at $90 and all the other games around it are $50, $60, or $70 it is more clear to the unassuming consumer to make a more benefical purchase.



2.) It much easier for a company to garner larger sums of revenue from a consumer that habitual purchases $5 to $10 purchases without considering how much they've spent over the months. This stink, especially if the quantity of content doesn't equal the amount of content released via an expansion.



3.) When the content is released as an expansion I believe you receive a more thoroughly intergrated product rather than stand alone pieces here and there that have no effect on the rest of the game in any profound way (In most cases).

[Veracruz]

the_one_54321 wrote...

making bad decisions is everyones right. but that doesnt mean i have to join in, and it certainly doesnt mean that i am not allowed to protest the systems that promote this.

To buy DCL (or not) is not a bad decision. It's an option. Smoking or drinking alcohol are options too and in those cases, there is more basis to call them "bad decisions" than to call that to a DLC.
No one forces us to buy a game on release day. No one forces us to preorder, buy a DLC, an expansion pack or similar. Considering that some PC games are released at 20€ price (and good ones too), I should claim that any other game that cost more is a bad decision (specially hyped but empty of real content junk games... which are a lot).
People can buy DLC for many reasons, including showing interest to Bioware in making more content for Dragon Age (toolset or not). Some people will buy it no matter what while most will stop buying it if prices/content don't improve (initial support is one thing, continued support is another).

[hero 2]

I agree with the OP and ...

Dalereth wrote...

My preference is for more substantive expansions that really add to the game, but if this is my option that's fine too.

Substantive expansions indeed. Please 

[pulcherrima]

Meshuganah wrote...

DLC is fine and dandy as long as they come out with a full length expansion/sequel in a reasonable time frame. What I do not want is perpetual $5 20 minute dungeons.

This!

I am tired of people saying that "7$ is nothing". Yes, 7$ ONE TIME is nothing, but cant you realise that EA will release 30 packs of 1hour content (7*30 = 210$) instead of a traditional 30hour expansion (30$)???

Please people, please, tell me you prefer to pay 210$ for something it has been selling until now for $30.

If EA is getting close to TEN TIMES the money from DLCs than they would get for a traditional expansion, why in the seven hells will they do the expansion pack?
Oh wait, they announced YET ANOTHER  $5, 1hour DLC!!! I wonder why?

I will buy DLCs when the content is substantial and the price per hour approaches that of the game itself.
I will not buy tremendously overpriced 1hour DLCs. It is bad for our future, really.

[KalDurenik]

I agree... I hope they will make a expansion and then maybe make a "Diamond" version including all the DLC released for 10-15 more $ then the normal price. I wont buy a single DLC like this i would rather make my own... Wait im working on my own

[giskard44]

KalDurenik wrote...

I agree... I hope they will make a expansion and then maybe make a "Diamond" version including all the DLC released for 10-15 more $ then the normal price. I wont buy a single DLC like this i would rather make my own... Wait im working on my own

In a sense its companies finally realising after 30+ years that they can mod their own games and make a profit from it.  Which is funny because had they asked any modder during those 30 years, would have told them right away it was a good idea