192 réponses à ce sujet

[purplesunset]

Skippy McgGee: maybe the DLC is like your beloved Cleveland Browns to some people.

I hope you see what I'm getting at, because I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just pointing out what should be obvious.

Modifié par purplesunset, 20 novembre 2009 - 02:55 .

[alebed]

I wont really make any addition to the subject at hand as this is something I do not really care all that much about, but I have to correct your statement in that Blizzard and Activision merged - Which they did -not- do. Blizzard Entertainment, inc still exists as a separate company as it always has. All that happened was that Vivendi, whom acquired Activision (and owns Blizzard) merged their own "Vivendi Games" department with the newly acquired Activision and renamed it Activision Blizzard. Blizzard Entertainment, however, was never a part of "Vivendi Games" department and thusly not a part of the merger.

[SkippyMcGee88]

purplesunset wrote...

Skippy McgGee: maybe the DLC is like your Cleveland Browns to some people.

I hope you see what I'm getting at, because I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just pointing out what should be obvious.

I hope it was obvious, because it was my whole point...

The last line of my post should have gave that away...

Most the people responding proabably didn't even read the entire post... Which is expected I guess.

But I was associating what the Browns are to me and how I'll defend them even though they are screwing me, and basically stealing my money... Not all that different from  how the "fanboys" are defending all this DLC.

I thought I was being clever with that comparison, but I think my grammar is atrocious and made the read a little difficult...

Modifié par SkippyMcGee88, 20 novembre 2009 - 02:59 .

[Damar Stiehl]

It's never about product.
It's always about the money.
This is the real world, not some 70s hippie commune.
Good games make money. Good DLC makes money. Ergo, it pays to make good DLC and good games.
If you think that DLC is good and you can spare five bucks, buy it. If you don't, don't buy it. There is no "loyalty questions" or moral dilemmas involved. I thought that Warden's Keep was worth seven dollars and had seven dollars that I was willing to part with.
Stop looking for wise justifications or conspiracy theories. DLC exists for the same reason fuzzy dice or gangsta rims with spinners exist. You don't need it to drive the car, but some people like them and buy them.
That's really all there is to it.
DLC will never again be free. That ship has sailed. You can ****** and moan about it, but it is what it is.

Modifié par Damar Stiehl, 20 novembre 2009 - 03:00 .

[purplesunset]

SkippyMcGee88 wrote...

purplesunset wrote...

Skippy McgGee: maybe the DLC is like your Cleveland Browns to some people.

I hope you see what I'm getting at, because I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just pointing out what should be obvious.

I hope it was obvious, because it was my whole point...

The last line of my post should have gave that away...

Most the people responding proabably didn't even read the entire post... Which is expected I guess.

But I was associating what the Browns are to me and how I'll defend them even though they are screwing me, and basically stealing my money, to the "fanboys" defending all this DLC.

I thought I was being clever, but I think my grammar is atrocious make the read a little difficult...

Ah I see. I thought you were proud of your loyalty to the Browns, but according to what you just said, this is not so. You're likening yourself to a fanboi

Yeah, you should have made the sarcasm a bit more obvious.

[Beechwell]

Of course DLC is no fan service, but a new marketing model to make money. I agree that prices are generally too high, but the idea to purchase games on a more modular basis does have its benefits. Remember that games cost much more money to make now than a few years back, yet prices for games never really went up much. Add to that the increasing ease to pirate games, and it's no wonder that companies are trying to find new ways to make money.

If the content is worth the price for you is everyone's own decision (and playing time alone is no indicator). Of course that also means that people should not mindlessly download every possible downloadable content there is for a game.



By the way, both ME and DA:O also had free DLC.

[ReallyAngry6969]

Ghandorian wrote...

if you think spending 10 -20 million dollars to develop a game engine and bring it to market can be supported by box sales alone than I am sure many game companies do to. And they will start handing out all the free content we can swallow to fill in the gap in the market.

So I will just sit back and wait till then. Will it help if I hold my breath?

You miss the point, genius.  The engine they developed is designed to appeal to the mass market.  They targeted the mass market with their flashy graphics engine and shallow, content starved storyline.  Then, they used cross-promotions and micro-transactions (these are terms you learn in a marketing class) to rack in massive revenues. 

This is what happens when company's are run for their shareholders- products get ****tier.  But, they figure out clever ways to increase the perceived value of the product and end up selling more than they would have with a product that had actual value.  This game is all about perceived value.  None of the choices you make have real impacts, the storyline blows, and the leveling system is dumbed down and boring.  They hide all this with fancy graphics (that I think look ****ty) and really good voice acting (no sarcasm, this voice acting rules and every NPC has some voice overs done). 

The bottom line is, can anyone actually say that this game is better than Baldur's Gate II?  Answer that question, and then remind yourself that BG II had two dimensional graphics (which I think look way better than DA:O's).  

[SheffSteel]

SkippyMcGee88 wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

What you said about Obama raises the essential counterpoint to your post. A lot of people support DA:O not because they are fanboys or have unreasonably high expectations, but simply because the alternative is so much worse.

Meh... I probably shouldn't have thrown that analogy in there, more off topic than anything else.

But I really hope that's not the justification you used for purchasing the DLC...

And if this alternative is worse... Which I assume would be no DLC.

Then doesn't that really only prove my point about "Milking the Cow" and what not?

For me, the alternative is no Bioware and no continued support for glorious old-school roleplaying games in the western tradition. EA is in financial trouble and is laying off a significant proportion of its developers, with a focus on the projects that look like being less profitable. So.

[Elanareon]

Actually the DLC was intended for the game to be kept alive even though the "user" finished it while waiting for the expansion... To those people who are saying that don't do DLC anymore do the expansion, they are. The DLC is a way to keep you occupied while you they make the expansion. Single player games dies quickly if you finished it so they came up with this plan to keep you hooked up to the game.

[SkippyMcGee88]

Elanareon wrote...

Actually the DLC was intended for the game to be kept alive even though the "user" finished it while waiting for the expansion... To those people who are saying that don't do DLC anymore do the expansion, they are. The DLC is a way to keep you occupied while you they make the expansion. Single player games dies quickly if you finished it so they came up with this plan to keep you hooked up to the game.

That's a very flawed argument...

Especially so when the game comes with a "toolkit"...

Now if this DLC was free, your point could have some merit...

But you're looking at this with "huge puppy dog eyes"...

The DLC is not being release to tide people over til an expansion...

I mean really? Seriously?

3 DLC's all costing $$$, 2 released on DAY 1... Another scheduled for Thanksgiving-Xmas, no more than 1.5 months after release.

Prolly could add a little conspiracy theory here as well..
Not one but TWO Day 1 DLC's came, yet there was no Day 1 Patch... Tad bit interesting if you think about it.

Take off your rose colored goggles buddy...

Modifié par SkippyMcGee88, 20 novembre 2009 - 03:13 .

[purplesunset]

You know what, Skippy. Ultimately, I think it's better to let the people buy the DLC.


Some argue (and it's a valid agruement) that doing this would only encourage EA/Bioware to keep pooping out micro "overpriced" DLC instead of meaty expansion packs.


However, I believe that if people don't buy DLC and the DLC program fails, instead of switching to something less unscrupulous like  expansion packs, EA would more likely just scrap Dragon Age altogether.

Why do I believe this? simple. Saving  Dragon Age for the sake of the fans  and switching to expansion packs would be an act of altruism. Every business man believes that altruism is the greatest evil on the face of this planet.

Expansion packs would be an even bigger gamble for Bioware in the event that the DLC program fails. The only reason they would keep Dragon Age is out of altruism...a favor to the loyal fans. pffft...There's a better chance of a snowflake surving in a furnace than a business committing an act of alstruism.   They would would just scrap DA altogether.


So just let the people buy the DLC. Let Bioware make the profits, let us hope that instead of spending the extra money getting tans in the Caribbean, they would put the money back into Dragon Age and giving us meaty expansion packs or even a part 2.

Modifié par purplesunset, 20 novembre 2009 - 03:28 .

[SkippyMcGee88]

purplesunset wrote...

You know what, Skippy. Ultimately, I think it's better to let the people buy the DLC.


Some argue (and it's a valid agruement) that doing this would only encourage EA/Bioware to keep pooping out micro "overpriced" DLC instead of meaty expansion packs.


However, I believe that if people don't buy DLC and the DLC program fails, instead of switching to something less unscrupulous like  expansion packs, EA would more likely just scrap Dragon Age altogether.

Why do I believe this? simple. Saving  Dragon Age for the sake of the fans  and switching to expansion packs would be an act of altruism. Every business man believes that altruism is the greatest evil on the face of this planet.

Expansion packs would be an even bigger gamble for Bioware in the event that the DLC program fails. The only reason they would keep Dragon Age is out of altruism...a favor to the loyal fans. pffft...There's a better chance of a snowflake surving in a furnace than a business committing an act of alstruism.   They would would just scrap DA altogether.


So just let the people buy the DLC. Let Bioware make the profits, let us hope that instead of spending the extra money getting tans in the Caribbean, they would put the money back into Dragon Age and giving us meaty expansion packs or even a part 2.

Very valid point...

Only issue with your post was the last paragraph...

You stated throughout your post that "altruism" goes against everything businesses hold dear... Stating EA would never do such a thing.

But in your last paragraph you said "let us hope that instead of spending the extra money getting tans in
the Caribbean, they would put the money back into Dragon Age and giving
us meaty expansion packs"...

Doesn't that sort of contradict what you were saying before? Why would Bioware or EA for that fact, do that at all? That would seem "altruistic" wouldn't it?

Besides that little issue, your point is spot on, and I can't say I disagree... Only thing you can really do now a days is "speak with your wallet". 

Well my wallet has it's mouth shout with regards to anymore of these DLC from this game... Because they are 0 for 2 in my book on DA:O with regards to DLC. And the 3rd doesn't look very promising.
"

[purplesunset]

Skippy:

I believe that Bioware is more likely to do an altruistic act with an excess of money (successful DLC program) than with a dearth of money (failed DLC program)

In both scenarios,  nothing is guaranteed, but  I prefer the one with a higher probability.

[Osprey39]

As a staunch capitalist, I have no problem with them charging for DLC. There's obviously a enough demand for it that people are willing to pay something to get it. That's how a market economy works. Would it be nice if they gave it away for free? Sure, but why should they? Just to be nice guys? They were already nice guys by including The Stone Prisoner with the box as well as the jewelry. Bottomline, they are in business to make money, not to be nice guys. The market will tell them whether they can charge for the DLC or not and right now, it says they can.



Now, since analogies have been discussed, let me give you another one that I think has some parallels with this situation. Way back when I went to Las Vegas for the first time (around 1995), the most expensive part of the trip was the airfare. You could stay at all but the newest hotels on the strip for peanuts and food was dirt cheap too. Now it was love at first sight for me with Vegas and I've gone back many times since then and over the years, I noticed that hotel prices started going up and up and the restaurants and buffets went from being tremendous bargains to being more expensive than what I would pay here where I live by a long shot. What happened? Well, pretty simple. The hotels used to be content with just getting you there knowing that you would lose plenty of money gambling for them to be profitable. Somewhere along the way, they started to realize that people really liked going to Las Vegas and they would go even if they didn't give away food and lodging for dirt cheap so the prices on those things started creeping up. The market proved them right and people still flocked to Vegas in greater and greater numbers.



Fast forward to today. Hardly a day goes by that I don't get an email from one of the player's clubs I'm in there for some smokin' deal on a hotel. I've gotten some that offer up to 5 nights free. Why the change? Well the market has changed. People don't have the money to blow on a Vegas trip so they've stopped going. The hotels are trying to get them back by cutting prices knowing they still have their secret weapon money maker downstairs in the casino.



The point I'm making with that analogy is that companies, which are in business to make money and not friends, will charge what the market will bear. When the market changes, they will adjust or perish. That's how it works. That's all Bioware/EA is doing with charging for DLC. People will pay for it for as long as they feel they are getting value for their money. As long as enough people feel that way to make it profitable, they're going to charge for it and I have no problem with that.

[kansadoom]

They can charge for DLC as much as they want I dont care if its not good from what ive heard I wont buy it.

[SheffSteel]

Another capitalist viewpoint: in tougher economic times, consumers are more likely to buy cheap stuff. A full-blown expansion pack is riskier now than ever compared with smaller DLC.

[Daeion]

FFA people, it's optional. If you don' t to pay then don't get it. It's like complaining that there is a regular and collecter's additions of game and that you should get everything the collector's eddition had even though you didn't pay for it.

[Rwraith]

Wow OP, nice long post. It's full of crap but at least it is long.

Oh, and as you are a Browns fan that just shows how much your opinion is worth.

Modifié par Rwraith, 20 novembre 2009 - 04:16 .

[Osprey39]

kansadoom wrote...

They can charge for DLC as much as they want I dont care if its not good from what ive heard I wont buy it.

And that is a perfectly reasonable decision for you to make as a consumer.

[Ghandorian]

SkippyMcGee88 wrote...

purplesunset wrote...

Skippy McgGee: maybe the DLC is like your Cleveland Browns to some people.

I hope you see what I'm getting at, because I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just pointing out what should be obvious.

I hope it was obvious, because it was my whole point...

The last line of my post should have gave that away...

Most the people responding proabably didn't even read the entire post... Which is expected I guess.

But I was associating what the Browns are to me and how I'll defend them even though they are screwing me, and basically stealing my money... Not all that different from  how the "fanboys" are defending all this DLC.

I thought I was being clever with that comparison, but I think my grammar is atrocious and made the read a little difficult...

I live outside a city that has lost its Pro Football team twice in the past 10 years. It had a pro hockey team like 50 years ago and lost it too. Now it has a new one.

Things change. Pro sports suck for the most part these days and it is all about social changes. The changes in the gaming industry are social changes, not greed or organized extortion as some would have us believe. This game seems to be trying to move toward something new. You have to change to be competitive and you have to be looking for where you should be a few years from now. If they just kept making everything the way they did I would still be playing Pool Of Radiance, or maybe I'd be outside throwing stones at real wolves to protect my goat!

[Monstruo696]

SheffSteel wrote...

Another capitalist viewpoint: in tougher economic times, consumers are more likely to buy cheap stuff. A full-blown expansion pack is riskier now than ever compared with smaller DLC.

Shows how much you know of economics.

In tougher economic times, consumers make the most they can with their money, and usually take the extra time to find the best bang for their buck.  Money is still being spent, it's just being spent smartly which is what causes some companies to lose revenue because they rely on their sheep to buy their overpriced products/services.  When the sheep realize that they're not getting their money's worth and stop buying, said companies start lowering their prices until stupid governments like ours starts giving 700 billion dollars to the very people who put us in this hole.

Let's take a look at why people are angry about these DLC:

Full Game - 35-50h Gameplay - $50-$60
Warden's Keep - 30m to 1.5h Gameplay - $7
Return to Ostagar - ~1h Gameplay - $5

The ratios are:

Full Game: $1 to $1.40 per Hour
WK: $14 to $4.70 per Hour
RtO: ~$5 per Hour

Do you see the problem now?

Disclaimer:  I don't want free DLC, I want DLC that's worth my money.

Modifié par Monstruo696, 20 novembre 2009 - 04:46 .

[Dauphin2]

DLC is the future. If you can't get on board with that, "Go buy yourself a vinyl record, grandpa."

[Challseus]

I think the thing people have to realize is, there are many people not complaining about DLC, not because they are fanboys, but rather, because they have more important things (important to them, obviously!) to worry about then spending $5 - $7 on DLC.
 
For me in particular, I bought Warden's Keep and rather enjoyed it, and I will buy this new one when it comes out. Trying to be that guy who tries to figure out exactly why Bioware DLC is being done in a particular way while not actually working at Bioware, or being in those meetings sound silly to me (but hey, this is the Internet ).

In the end, I personally have other things going on in my life that take precedent over DLC queries. Could we be getting screwed? Possibly. Perhaps it's sad, but I just don't care... Now, if someone could get rid of all my other problems, I would them possibly help in the fight against/for DLC.

[addiction21]

Monstruo696 wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

Another capitalist viewpoint: in tougher economic times, consumers are more likely to buy cheap stuff. A full-blown expansion pack is riskier now than ever compared with smaller DLC.

Shows how much you know of economics.

In tougher economic times, consumers make the most they can with their money, and usually take the extra time to find the best bang for their buck.  Money is still being spent, it's just being spent smartly which is what causes some companies to lose revenue because they rely on their sheep to buy their overpriced products/services.  When the sheep realize that they're not getting their money's worth and stop buying, said companies start lowering their prices until stupid governments like ours starts giving 700 billion dollars to the very people who put us in this hole.

Let's take a look at why people are angry about these DLC:

Full Game - 35-50h Gameplay - $50-$60
Warden's Keep - 30m to 1.5h Gameplay - $7
Return to Ostagar - ~1h Gameplay - $5

The ratios are:

Full Game: $1 to $1.40 per Hour
WK: $14 to $4.70 per Hour
RtO: ~$5 per Hour

Do you see the problem now?

Disclaimer:  I don't want free DLC, I want DLC that's worth my money.

I see a problem. 
DAO is the exception to the rule of gameplay length these days.
Also not everyone takes the same amount of time to play thru and not everyone only plays thru the content once.
Lastly the length of a game does not by and of itself determine its entertainment value or worth.

Modifié par addiction21, 20 novembre 2009 - 04:59 .