166 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

CannonLars wrote...

The issue here is that traditionally, we get the entire game when we go to the store. They made it all for us and we get everything. The skins, costumes, and weapons were generally on the disc, so it is hard to believe that suddenly it should be okay this far from release or even just before release, for something that can clearly be put on the disk to be left separate for extra profit or some sort of push to make you pay full new price on the product. I think if it is ready in time to be on the disk, then it should be. Don't keep it as a separate DLC just because it is a way to cash in in the modern industry model.

Now, this argument actually works. Not an argument that they can't do it, but an argument that they shouldn't do it because it's not nice and they didn't treat us this badly in the past.

The only problem is that it has no force -- either you share this feeling or you don't.

[BloodyTalon]

Have to agree with some of the stuff he sad

But the sad truth is DLC is here to stay and it is not going anywhere for awhile. Even though I am fan of dlc that is for day one for buying the game new, I still think that if it is on the disc regardless it should be free but that is just me.

But if publishers can make money off nickle and dimming people they willl doubt that will change any time soon.

[CannonO]

AlanC9 wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

The issue here is that traditionally, we get the entire game when we go to the store. They made it all for us and we get everything. The skins, costumes, and weapons were generally on the disc, so it is hard to believe that suddenly it should be okay this far from release or even just before release, for something that can clearly be put on the disk to be left separate for extra profit or some sort of push to make you pay full new price on the product. I think if it is ready in time to be on the disk, then it should be. Don't keep it as a separate DLC just because it is a way to cash in in the modern industry model.

Now, this argument actually works. Not an argument that they can't do it, but an argument that they shouldn't do it because it's not nice and they didn't treat us this badly in the past.

The only problem is that it has no force -- either you share this feeling or you don't.

The thing is, we want the content. We are stuck following their model. I am not saying it is wrong, but they didn't need to before, so their motives of recently doing it are just so clear. Releasing an expansion months later is one great thing, but announcing DLC 8months ahead is unkind.

[Lunatic LK47]

AlanC9 wrote...

I never heard that Kasumi had anything to do with Verner. What was found on the disc?

A ****ton of audio files that were not used. Thank didymos1120
for doing the digging around, and this was how we found out about Kasumi MONTHS before she was announced. To make some matters worse, a lot of the unused files were data-import related (i.e. Conrad Verner being charmed?)

[JayhartRIC]

CannonLars wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

The issue here is that traditionally, we get the entire game when we go to the store. They made it all for us and we get everything. The skins, costumes, and weapons were generally on the disc, so it is hard to believe that suddenly it should be okay this far from release or even just before release, for something that can clearly be put on the disk to be left separate for extra profit or some sort of push to make you pay full new price on the product. I think if it is ready in time to be on the disk, then it should be. Don't keep it as a separate DLC just because it is a way to cash in in the modern industry model.

Now, this argument actually works. Not an argument that they can't do it, but an argument that they shouldn't do it because it's not nice and they didn't treat us this badly in the past.

The only problem is that it has no force -- either you share this feeling or you don't.

The thing is, we want the content. We are stuck following their model. I am not saying it is wrong, but they didn't need to before, so their motives of recently doing it are just so clear. Releasing an expansion months later is one great thing, but announcing DLC 8months ahead is unkind.

The car I bought didn't have a cigarette lighter.  It had power windows, but only in the front.

[Whatever42]

Ultimately, its the best option considering all the factors.

The public developer and publisher have to return a competitive profit. They have no choice.
The development costs of the game have gone up significantly.

This leaves the developer with having to raise the price. They can either raise the price of the game from $60 to $80 or some such figure. Or they can shorten the game a proportionate amount. Or they can lower the quality of the game.

Or they can look for other revenue by producing overpriced optional content for those gamers willing to pay for it. It's a serious win-win for everyone. I can understand why a broke but hardcore fan would be disappointed but in reality, that fan would be worse off if not for DLC.

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

The issue here is that traditionally, we get the entire game when we go to the store. They made it all for us and we get everything. The skins, costumes, and weapons were generally on the disc, so it is hard to believe that suddenly it should be okay this far from release or even just before release, for something that can clearly be put on the disk to be left separate for extra profit or some sort of push to make you pay full new price on the product. I think if it is ready in time to be on the disk, then it should be. Don't keep it as a separate DLC just because it is a way to cash in in the modern industry model.

Now, this argument actually works. Not an argument that they can't do it, but an argument that they shouldn't do it because it's not nice and they didn't treat us this badly in the past.

The only problem is that it has no force -- either you share this feeling or you don't.

Mmmm...This is really pushing boundaries here.  We're in "Not everything pictured on the box may be available in the box" boundaries.  It's not very different from selling a box of Mac'N'Cheese,  but then putting the cheese in a package that can only be opened if Kraft's paid an extra dollar. 

Without a label that says "Not all content on the disc may be accessible without additional charges" they're riding that fine line that many companies have been nailed for in the past.  I'm thinking of the old phone services that offered you some kind of "Party line" but neglected to mention that it was $5/min after the first minute. 

You can't offer a service or product,  but intentionally withold part of the product and force the consumer to pay to get the rest of what they already paid for.  Not without making a clear disclaimer that the consumer may read prior to purchase.

TBH,  I suspect we really are in class-action land here,  especially given how Dead Space 2 literally held you hostage.  Considering that EA's already facing a class-action for how it bought NFL exclusivity and then jacked up the price of the games significantly,  it's really not a realm they want to be in,  because they're starting to look like they are trying to hold consumers hostage.

[AlanC9]

CannonLars wrote...
The thing is, we want the content. We are stuck following their model. I am not saying it is wrong, but they didn't need to before, so their motives of recently doing it are just so clear. Releasing an expansion months later is one great thing, but announcing DLC 8months ahead is unkind.

Well, we're not stuck following it. I've never bought any DLC myself.

Unless you want to follow Gatt9's argument and say that I bought Kasumi, even though I didn't want to buy her, didn't try to buy her, and had no idea that I had bought her.

[CannonO]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Ultimately, its the best option considering all the factors.

The public developer and publisher have to return a competitive profit. They have no choice.
The development costs of the game have gone up significantly.

This leaves the developer with having to raise the price. They can either raise the price of the game from $60 to $80 or some such figure. Or they can shorten the game a proportionate amount. Or they can lower the quality of the game.

Or they can look for other revenue by producing overpriced optional content for those gamers willing to pay for it. It's a serious win-win for everyone. I can understand why a broke but hardcore fan would be disappointed but in reality, that fan would be worse off if not for DLC.

It's not quite win win when you are told about the content being partitioned as DLC months ahead of game completion. If this were coming out 5 years ago, they would just either put it in the game or mke it release a few months after when they get to finishing it. The 360 game model back then was to release the game as intended and then some DLC would come within that first year of release.

Now they are on purpose making content that they won't (rather than can't) put in the game, evidenced by either its early announcement, or specific pricing.

It is just making it appear as though the are cutting down the potential of the game on the disc to make it a profit on top of the retail price. The resources for these DLC's could go right into the game and its release, but instead they separate it and I have to hope that it never had a chance of making it in the game without the DLC market, but considering what the content is in many cases or when it is announced, it seems like it is built in the plan to get some extra DLC or profit from us.

Content is good, but not when it can be in the game and isn't because they want to hold onto it until game launch so it can be a $5 gun pack or $10 mini mission.

[AlanC9]

CannonLars wrote...
It's not quite win win when you are told about the content being partitioned as DLC months ahead of game completion. If this were coming out 5 years ago, they would just either put it in the game or mke it release a few months after when they get to finishing it. The 360 game model back then was to release the game as intended and then some DLC would come within that first year of release.

Now they are on purpose making content that they won't (rather than can't) put in the game, evidenced by either its early announcement, or specific pricing.

This is awfully confused. The game makers nowadays are making the game "as intended;" that hasn't changed. The difference is that they're also making content that isn't intended to be in the game at the same time. 

The resources for these DLC's could go right into the game and its release, but instead they separate it

Sure. They could. They could also go right into the EA stockholders' pockets, or be sucked into the bottomless pit of dev time known as The Old Republic. Is there any particular reason to think that those resouces would go where you'd like them to go?

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 juin 2011 - 04:31 .

[Lunatic LK47]

AlanC9 wrote...
This is awfully confused. The game makers nowadays are making the game "as intended;" that hasn't changed. The difference is that they're also making content that isn't intended to be in the game at the same time.

It's a mixed bag depending on the relevance and scope of the DLC in question. I mean, Lair of the Shadow Broker is a pretty big relevant subplot that could have easily been in the main game if they decided to delay it to Sumer 2010.  However, that could have been a disaster, not to mention the wait was outright unbearable at times because of Dragon Age, Mass Effect Ascension, Redemption, and Jacob's I-phone game. On top of this, there was a big uproar about the lack of bridging DLC in the old forums, and rightly so because BioWare did not fail to live up for it during ME1 (Bring Down The Sky while great did not really hint at anyhing for ME2, while Pinnacle Station was an overglorified "VR Training Mission" DLC.) No bridging DLC for ME1 into ME2 in that department. I'd blame ME2's shortcomings solely on focusing on the supplementary canon instead of the main trilogy.

As for DLC in general: If the content is found through hidden files, and those files are utilized as DLC packs, that will fall under "Should have been in the main game to begin with. Could have delayed the release date."  If it's something like "Get an extra gun," I'd be fine with downloading it if I want it.

[CannonO]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
This is awfully confused. The game makers nowadays are making the game "as intended;" that hasn't changed. The difference is that they're also making content that isn't intended to be in the game at the same time.

It's a mixed bag depending on the relevance and scope of the DLC in question. I mean, Lair of the Shadow Broker is a pretty big relevant subplot that could have easily been in the main game if they decided to delay it to Sumer 2010.  However, that could have been a disaster, not to mention the wait was outright unbearable at times because of Dragon Age, Mass Effect Ascension, Redemption, and Jacob's I-phone game. On top of this, there was a big uproar about the lack of bridging DLC in the old forums, and rightly so because BioWare did not fail to live up for it during ME1 (Bring Down The Sky while great did not really hint at anyhing for ME2, while Pinnacle Station was an overglorified "VR Training Mission" DLC.) No bridging DLC for ME1 into ME2 in that department. I'd blame ME2's shortcomings solely on focusing on the supplementary canon instead of the main trilogy.

As for DLC in general: If the content is found through hidden files, and those files are utilized as DLC packs, that will fall under "Should have been in the main game to begin with. Could have delayed the release date."  If it's something like "Get an extra gun," I'd be fine with downloading it if I want it.

Delaying a game for the possibly extra content is too much. I absolutely understand DLC that comes out later if it is something large and they work a month or so after release to put it out. Lair of the Shadow Broker was good and valuable DLC. No problems with that being later and it felt like it worked great. The whole game shouldn't have been delayed for it.

AlanC9 wrote...

CannonLars wrote...
It's not quite win win when you are told about the content being partitioned as DLC months ahead of game completion. If this were coming out 5 years ago, they would just either put it in the game or mke it release a few months after when they get to finishing it. The 360 game model back then was to release the game as intended and then some DLC would come within that first year of release.

Now they are on purpose making content that they won't (rather than can't) put in the game, evidenced by either its early announcement, or specific pricing.

This is awfully confused. The game makers nowadays are making the game "as intended;" that hasn't changed. The difference is that they're also making content that isn't intended to be in the game at the same time. 

The resources for these DLC's could go right into the game and its release, but instead they separate it

Sure. They could. They could also go right into the EA stockholders' pockets, or be sucked into the bottomless pit of dev time known as The Old Republic. Is there any particular reason to think that those resouces would go where you'd like them to go?

You think all those weapons they design and record months before they are done with the game and announced as DLC, are done without profit motive? They are absolutely making content that they could be putting in the game with the time they have and they do want you to get it in your game because it is good for their wallets, they just don't put it in always anymore. It isn't like they make these costumes and characters and they are not intended to be in the game. If it is going to be scrapped, they scrap it before they have finished it up for programming and DLC integration. That content is set up to be DLC for one reason or another, but often for profit.

The DLC that is made ahead of time is made to be DLC. Developers even say that themselves. When players ask why they are cutting things out of the game to sell to them, the developer says it wasn't taken from the full game, it was made as an add-on for the purpose that it is now serving. They don't say it is a scrap that isn't intended for the game.

If they think the content is good enough for us to play or buy, then it belongs in the game if time permits.

Modifié par CannonLars, 22 juin 2011 - 04:49 .

[In Exile]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
As for DLC in general: If the content is found through hidden files, and those files are utilized as DLC packs, that will fall under "Should have been in the main game to begin with. Could have delayed the release date."  If it's something like "Get an extra gun," I'd be fine with downloading it if I want it.

Bioware's response to this is that they have a separate DLC team building the content, and they leave in-game whatever makes it easier for that content up-to certification prior to release.

[AlanC9]

CannonLars wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

This is awfully confused. The game makers nowadays are making the game "as intended;" that hasn't changed. The difference is that they're also making content that isn't intended to be in the game at the same time. 

You think all those weapons they design and record months before they are done with the game and announced as DLC, are done without profit motive?

Huh? The whole game is made with profit motive. Why would the DLC be any different?

They are absolutely making content that they could be putting in the game with the time they have and they do want you to get it in your game because it is good for their wallets, they just don't put it in always anymore.

Of course they could put the DLC content in the game. They could also release the game for free. What a developer "could" do is not a useful metric.

The DLC that is made ahead of time is made to be DLC. Developers even say that themselves. When players ask why they are cutting things out of the game to sell to them, the developer says it wasn't taken from the full game, it was made as an add-on for the purpose that it is now serving. They don't say it is a scrap that isn't intended for the game.

If they think the content is good enough for us to play or buy, then it belongs in the game if time permits.

Why? I get that you really, really believe this, but what's the reason?

[In Exile]

CannonLars wrote...

If they think the content is good enough for us to play or buy, then it belongs in the game if time permits.

What if time doesn't permit? What if, for example, making Kasumi part of the main game means delaying release 3 weeks?

[DocLasty]

Gatt9 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

The issue here is that traditionally, we get the entire game when we go to the store. They made it all for us and we get everything. The skins, costumes, and weapons were generally on the disc, so it is hard to believe that suddenly it should be okay this far from release or even just before release, for something that can clearly be put on the disk to be left separate for extra profit or some sort of push to make you pay full new price on the product. I think if it is ready in time to be on the disk, then it should be. Don't keep it as a separate DLC just because it is a way to cash in in the modern industry model.

Now, this argument actually works. Not an argument that they can't do it, but an argument that they shouldn't do it because it's not nice and they didn't treat us this badly in the past.

The only problem is that it has no force -- either you share this feeling or you don't.

Mmmm...This is really pushing boundaries here.  We're in "Not everything pictured on the box may be available in the box" boundaries.  It's not very different from selling a box of Mac'N'Cheese,  but then putting the cheese in a package that can only be opened if Kraft's paid an extra dollar. 

Without a label that says "Not all content on the disc may be accessible without additional charges" they're riding that fine line that many companies have been nailed for in the past.  I'm thinking of the old phone services that offered you some kind of "Party line" but neglected to mention that it was $5/min after the first minute. 

You can't offer a service or product,  but intentionally withold part of the product and force the consumer to pay to get the rest of what they already paid for.  Not without making a clear disclaimer that the consumer may read prior to purchase.

TBH,  I suspect we really are in class-action land here,  especially given how Dead Space 2 literally held you hostage.  Considering that EA's already facing a class-action for how it bought NFL exclusivity and then jacked up the price of the games significantly,  it's really not a realm they want to be in,  because they're starting to look like they are trying to hold consumers hostage.

But game companies do that all the time. Debug just about any game, and you'll find stuff that you wouldn't find if you played through normally. Junk data, incomplete crap, et cetera.

Case in point - on MvC2, there's some data for Dr. Octopus. Not enough to even make a playable character, but it's on there. Does that mean if Capcom ever releases Doc Ock as a DLC character that I should get him for free, just because there are already shred of him on the disc?

[Lunatic LK47]

In Exile wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

If they think the content is good enough for us to play or buy, then it belongs in the game if time permits.

What if time doesn't permit? What if, for example, making Kasumi part of the main game means delaying release 3 weeks?

Three weeks would have been a fine wait. At least it isn't Duke Nukem Forever.

[Lunatic LK47]

In Exile wrote...
Bioware's response to this is that they have a separate DLC team building the content, and they leave in-game whatever makes it easier for that content up-to certification prior to release.

For the record, I'm aware that the DLC team is separate from the main development team. As much as I liked ME2, I just felt the game could have been a bit more complete with LOTSB being part of the main game, and actually utilizing the data import instead of spending the extra money they had on the supplementary material (i.e. the comics, the Iphone game that no one is going to buy the device for, and the novels.)

[In Exile]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Three weeks would have been a fine wait. At least it isn't Duke Nukem Forever.

You missed my point.

If the release the company wants is x, and incorporating DLC means +3 weeks from original release (which they don't want), should they have the DLC or scrap it entirely to get the relase date they want?

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
For the record, I'm aware that the
DLC team is separate from the main development team. As much as I liked
ME2, I just felt the game could have been a bit more complete with
LOTSB being part of the main game, and actually utilizing the data
import instead of spending the extra money they had on the supplementary
material (i.e. the comics, the Iphone game that no one is going to buy
the device for, and the novels.)

Why do you think "extra" money was spent on these peripherals? Everything was likely budgeted for different reasons with different expectations. Unless you could justify how the comic, iphone game or the novels would increase ME2 sales above their individual sales to provide a better profit margin.

[Lunatic LK47]

In Exile wrote...


Why do you think "extra" money was spent on these peripherals? Everything was likely budgeted for different reasons with different expectations. Unless you could justify how the comic, iphone game or the novels would increase ME2 sales above their individual sales to provide a better profit margin.

Uh, for all of the "let's attract new blood," I'm not even sure how many comic fans, novel readers, or the "Farmville" crowd got remotely interested in the Mass Effect franchise. This just reeked of "BioWare stretched itself too thin" regardless of the dedicated teams and oversight of Walters and Karpshynn. I've been a gamer for almost two decades and got interested in Mass Effect because hey, it's ****ing BioWare. I never bothered with the prequel novel just because I never saw anything remotely good about it (and lo and behold, I was right after buying the novel three months after I bought the game.)

[In Exile]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Uh, for all of the "let's attract new blood," I'm not even sure how many comic fans, novel readers, or the "Farmville" crowd got remotely interested in the Mass Effect franchise.

It's not about new fans. How does LoTSB in ME2 add any extra sales to ME2?  You lose all DLC sales just from adding it in, to boot.

Whereas the comic, iphone game etc. have their own profit margin + you have the extra profit from LoTSB DLC. Financially, it doesn't make sense to invest that much money in the core game when the ROI is low.

This just reeked of "BioWare stretched itself too thin" regardless of the dedicated teams and oversight of Walters and Karpshynn. I've been a gamer for almost two decades and got interested in Mass Effect because hey, it's ****ing BioWare. I never bothered with the prequel novel just because I never saw anything remotely good about it (and lo and behold, I was right after buying the novel three months after I bought the game.)

I've never touched any of that peripheral content. I'm just saying, you can't invest an infinite amount in a game.

[Lunatic LK47]

In Exile wrote...

Whereas the comic, iphone game etc. have their own profit margin + you have the extra profit from LoTSB DLC. Financially, it doesn't make sense to invest that much money in the core game when the ROI is low.

Uh, wouldn't the same be said if the target audience did not have any interest in the peripheral material? No sales data was ever given on how well those items sold. As it is, they're little more than gimmicks on the same caliber as Kinect, and 3D movies.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 22 juin 2011 - 05:52 .

[ME-ParaShep]

Basically what I'm seeing is that some people are making alibis about game content that's seemingly already installed in the discs (but have yet to be unlocked by buying the DLC itself) in order to save some money that they can easily earn in a day for content that's also optional as to which the devs kindly offer it to us instead of tossing into the garbage can and thus them earning extra money to bring food home to the table and to provide shelter above their heads as well.

The way I see it. It's a way to earn a measely extra bit of cash to survive and even so it makes players who are immersive into the games happy and fulfilled; especially when it comes to a game with extremely high replayability. The advertised game and it's pre-unlocked content is already worth more than it's price tag IMO. Being a penny pincher about DLC that's considered fairly cheap to provide an already in depth gaming experience is no way to be a happy camper. The DLC is there to add an extra perspective on the storyline. We already have enough game content to deal with as it is, but some people want way more for less and that's not fair if you look at it from a business perspective for developers.

[neubourn]

Developers are using every trick they can to suck every penny from consumers, and unfortunately, its getting to become a bit too much.

As a consumer, when you purchase a game, you are purchasing whats on that disc. If there are other things hidden on the disc that become future DLC, then how is it fair that consumers must pay TWICE for content they already own?

Case in point: Battlefield BC2. Excellent game. But, the latest DLC "Vietnam" is already on the disc. People already owned it, but were unable to play it until they pay EA for the privilege of doing so. Oh, i know what youre saying: "but its just a different add-on and new gameplay, so theres no problem with paying for it since its new!!"

But therein lies the problem. If consumers allow this type of thing to become acceptable behavior, then what you are doing is sending the message that its ok for them to lock off certain features of their game to sell back to us at a later date. So you end up with games that become less and less as they are filled with more and more "future DLC' and you end up paying MORE and MORE for the SAME GAME.

It used to be simple: buy a game, and you had access to that game. "DLC" was classified as "extras" you had to download and pay for, and you had the choice on whether or not to do so, but it still didnt keep you from anything in the original game. But hey, if people are ok with getting less and less of a gam so they can pay more later, then the game developers and publishers will continue this practice.