183 réponses à ce sujet

[Bravedog]

POINT 1: If u dont want DLC, you are not penalised - its single player.... I only get irritated when DLC effect multi-player ---- I don't take any game seriously enough to buy victory or glory over the next guy... and it is a massive turn-off in enjoyment when the hook lies in post-purchase supplementary investment when a decision to not spend the coin will ultimately result in an uneven playing field.

POINT 2 - DLC is great in solo play because if I am really into it and the price is acceptable to me then I can pay a small amount to have a new experience (at about the same price I would pay to rent a DVD). If I am not so into it, I may not pay now but will if the price drops or a good bundle is offered...

POINT 3 - Do some soul-searching and ask yourself if you would have preferred to pay an additional $50 a couple of weeks ago for more up-front content? If the answer is "no" then be content that you have been given the choice to expand the game... If the answer is "yes" then all you are facing is the inconvenience associated with your download speeds but are otherwise getting exactly what you want.

Modifié par Bravedog, 20 novembre 2009 - 12:45 .

[makeshiftwings7]

pulcherrima wrote...
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.

I don't mean to single you out, but this is more to everyone making this argument:  I think you're all living in the past.  The days of single-player computer games with no DLC and only boxed expansions are OVER.  Can you name any single-player-only PC game in the last five years or so that didn't have any DLC but managed to succeed?  PC Games are going under, fast.  Most PC-game-only copmanies are quickly going out of business; some have converted over to focusing on MMO's, and the few who have thrived focusing on single-player games (Bethesda's the only one that springs to mind) have only survived because they do simultaneous console releases and DLC.

Releasing only a single player PC game and an expansion is no longer "proven".  In fact, it's proven to almost definitely fail due to the overwhelming amount of piracy in PC games.

[Aidunno]

Releasing only a single player PC game and an expansion is no longer "proven".  In fact, it's proven to almost definitely fail due to the overwhelming amount of piracy in PC games

Where is this proof? I've seen reports showing that "pirates" actually spend far more money on items than people who do not pirate. Like always depends on who you talk to and what marketing angle they are coming from.

[Baelann]

I realize downloadable content costs money to produce. I also recognize that the worth of the video game industry surpasses that of the movie industry. But, like this post states, it is something companies do because they know people are willing to pay. What we have to realize is, the video game industry isn't our friendly neighbour who is willing to shovel our snow for free while we're gone, or our best friend who will bake us a wedding cake, or throw us a killer birthday party. The video game industry is just that....an industry. Their job is to put out a product that makes money. Luckily for fans, some of the people involved in the process are also fans and try their best not to let us down. Sometimes this is not even enough though and companies run out of budget and time and are forced to put out something that they may realize is buggy and unpolished. But this is what patches are for.

[Osprey39]

Aidunno wrote...

Releasing only a single player PC game and an expansion is no longer "proven".  In fact, it's proven to almost definitely fail due to the overwhelming amount of piracy in PC games

Where is this proof? I've seen reports showing that "pirates" actually spend far more money on items than people who do not pirate. Like always depends on who you talk to and what marketing angle they are coming from.

I'd love to see those 'reports'.

[Dalereth]

TileToad wrote...

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.

I'm always impressed by an argument that can so clearly summarize an issue in so few words.

The only reason there have been raging debates about DLC here is that most of us have some kind of addiction, no doubt ranging from mild to serious, when it comes to gaming, or certain games at least. We all feel much more strongly about having the latest thing to do in a game than we do about other products we have the option of buying or not buying, so there's this emotional response to new offerings in a gaming world.

ne12o wrote...

I think you should be the one to learn economics. The "5, 7$ isn't the price many people are willing to pay", its the price determined by their research (may be wrong or right) to maximize their revenue. The thing with DLC is that maximizing revenue means maximizing profits (since marginal costs are damn near 0 for digital distribution).

This "correction" entirely misses the point. Revenue is a function of price and units sold which except in rare cases are inversely related. The slope of a revenue curve is the elasticity of a particular product, which is determined by consumer attitudes about what they are and aren't willing to pay. So irrespective of Bioware's research being "right" or "wrong", it certainly does take into account what people are willing to pay. In maximizing revenue the number of people willing to pay for a product at various prices is critical.

So if those strongly opposed to downloadable content are successful in voicing their concerns and convincing others then Bioware will have no choice but to adapt their model to changing consumer attitudes, so feel free to voice them. But in the very least give Bioware some respect - it isn't price gouging, or doing anything unethical or even unreasonable. It's simply maximizing its profits based on what the market dictates, which any responsible business is beholden to do.

As I've said before paying for small DLC sours me a bit, but when I look at the time and effort that went into this game I begrudgingly still feel it's worth it for me personally at this stage. I compare the development time and its associated costs as well as the dedication that the developers have obviously put into this game to some of the crappy movie-to-game adaptations (for example) that sell for the same price at much lower cost to the developer and it's hard to feel ripped off.

[cocomoe1]

Dalereth wrote...
So if those strongly opposed to downloadable content are successful in voicing their concerns and convincing others then Bioware will have no choice but to adapt their model to changing consumer attitudes, so feel free to voice them. But in the very least give Bioware some respect - it isn't price gouging, or doing anything unethical or even unreasonable. It's simply maximizing its profits based on what the market dictates, which any responsible business is beholden to do.

As I've said before paying for small DLC sours me a bit, but when I look at the time and effort that went into this game I begrudgingly still feel it's worth it for me personally at this stage. I compare the development time and its associated costs as well as the dedication that the developers have obviously put into this game to some of the crappy movie-to-game adaptations (for example) that sell for the same price at much lower cost to the developer and it's hard to feel ripped off.

I agree with you on the fact that, EA/Bioware are maximizing what they can get from the consumer.  But it feels like they cut content out of the game to be able to sell it to you at a later date.  You are still paying $50+ for a game and then wait you need to spend more money to get the "full" experience out of it. 

Now like you I thought I saw some value with the Solider Peak DLC, but now that I bought and played it, $7 was to much for something so short, though the storage box was nice to have.  Only way companies will change thier model is if they hear reasonable comments on said product.  Just saying I don't like it does not cut the mustard.

[cocomoe1]

makeshiftwings7 wrote...
Releasing only a single player PC game and an expansion is no longer "proven".  In fact, it's proven to almost definitely fail due to the overwhelming amount of piracy in PC games.

I Lol'd at this, care to explain the recent Xbox live users that were banned recently?  They had people playing MW2 before the street date.

[cocomoe1]

Brian Chung wrote...

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

Ub3r_ wrote...
or they could do a Team Fortress 2 model and release all DLC free?

I love getting 2 new weapons every few months or so.  Really, I do.

Indeed.  I can't recall where I read this, but the TF2 update team is very small and they often have to scrouge people from existing projects to contribute to TF2.  Or contribute on their own time when they have some to spare, which frequently isn't often.

Hence the long durations between updates.

True but you still have people willing to pay full price for the game.  Even if you get new "toys" every so often you never have to feelling of being robbed like what Sony did with Star Wars Galaxies, you paid for the original game,  they added space with Jump to Lightspeed, then a few months later they made it an all in one box.  Atleast that was added a few months after the game was released, here you have content you need to pay for immediatley.  How do you expect players to feel to know it existed and is not in the game.