192 réponses à ce sujet

[HoratioSanz]

JaegerBane wrote...

HoratioSanz wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Appeasing the loyalists? What on earth do you think is going on here? Here I was thinking this was just a matter of you pays your money and you takes your choice.

I'm not very bright, but even I could see he was being sarcastic.

But you couldn't see I was, too?

I thought it was illegal to respond to sarcasm with more sarcasm?

Modifié par HoratioSanz, 20 novembre 2009 - 09:08 .

[Chris_Really_Rocks]

All this moaning about DLC annoys me. The more profit Bioware makes, the more likely that they are to continue to produce this kind of game. Frankly, I would be willing to pay about $200-300 for a game like this -- that's what it's worth to me. Most people won't shell out more than $50 - $60 bucks for a pc -- console game, because that's what most all of them cost and because most people won't pay more than that up front. Microtransactions allow Bioware to capture money from people like me and others who love these games and would be willing to pay more than we do. Those for whom games like this are worth only $50-$60 worth of utility won't pay for more stuff simple as that.



So, bottom line is DLC is a good thing that allows Bioware to come closer to maximizing its profits from a product that is far less popular and lucrative than something like MW2 or Halo or even Mass Effect. So what's that mean? Increased chance of us getting more games like this and, as a result, ultimately paying more for them. Do I really give a damn that I pay more? Not really. Just as long as I get more of this style of RPG, I'll pay just about anything.

[Dnarris]

Chris_Really_Rocks wrote...

All this moaning about DLC annoys me. The more profit Bioware makes, the more likely that they are to continue to produce this kind of game. Frankly, I would be willing to pay about $200-300 for a game like this -- that's what it's worth to me. Most people won't shell out more than $50 - $60 bucks for a pc -- console game, because that's what most all of them cost and because most people won't pay more than that up front. Microtransactions allow Bioware to capture money from people like me and others who love these games and would be willing to pay more than we do. Those for whom games like this are worth only $50-$60 worth of utility won't pay for more stuff simple as that.

So, bottom line is DLC is a good thing that allows Bioware to come closer to maximizing its profits from a product that is far less popular and lucrative than something like MW2 or Halo or even Mass Effect. So what's that mean? Increased chance of us getting more games like this and, as a result, ultimately paying more for them. Do I really give a damn that I pay more? Not really. Just as long as I get more of this style of RPG, I'll pay just about anything.

Your stance is economically unrealistic for most people. Most people won't pay $200-300 for a single game, because the notion is ridiculous. If you wish to make a donation to Bioware of an extra $250 send the check. I'm sure they won't turn it away.

The nature of DLC isn't bad. The way it is implemented can be. Currently when purchasing the game or content for this game your currency should be as valuable as it was when you made the purchase of your retail box. You get plenty of content for your $50 and it's a great deal. However, when you look at the pricing model for the DLC it is in no way upholding the value your currency had when you purchased the retail box. The problem with that is it is showing little respect to consumer and the purchasing power of their currency. Why should the consumer be okay with getting less for more money? For that matter why shouldn't  it be okay for the consumer to expect to get an equivalent value for the money that they are spending from intial purchase to additional content?

When the pricing model for DLC depreciates the value of your currency, then I do not believe that it is a good thing. When DLC is presenting you with content that should have been in the game to begin with then it is not a good thing. I'm not saying DA: O is currently doing the latter, merely commenting on the nature of DLC in general.

I'm all for more content. I am, however, disappointed I'll miss out on that extra content, because I pay attention to the value of my money when I make purchases. If the value ever becomes balanced to the value of my currency when I purchased the game I'll consider buying DLC.

It is a consumer choice whether or not to buy DLC, but there is nothing wrong with sharing with others why or why you won't support the DLC in its current incarnation.

Modifié par Dnarris, 20 novembre 2009 - 09:41 .

[deadrockstar]

I'd just like to say I enjoyed Warden's Keep and would like to see more of the same. However, I don't agree with the pricing - not because I can't afford it, but because I believe it an excessive revenue stream that appears designed to maximise porfitability i.e. it's going to shareholders and stakeholders, not into Bioware's development budget. If Bioware can come out and say otherwise, I'd be interested to hear that. I suspect that will never happen, though.

That, for me, is where my value is lost.

Also, it looks like DLC is replacing a more traditional expansion revenue model for Bioware. Forum members have repeatedly asked on their plans for DLC and expansions in threads Bioware are reading and responding to - even taking the time to answer questions like, "will there be waffles?"

I will pay for DLC (and probably moan a bit on the forums, as is human nature ) if expansion development is not affected by them. What I'm not willing to do is fund the death of DA:O (or any other game). I want to play more DA:O, DLCs are not more when they're a series of disjointed and short lived independent quests. I will happily play them to fill in time between expansions, but I'm not hanging around for 2 years to play an hour every month just because. I'll invest my time in another game in that case (though of course stick around to mod!)

[Monstruo696]

Chris_Really_Rocks wrote...

I would be willing to pay about $200-300 for a game like this.

Excuse me, but I do believe you're full of it.

In fact, it's overflowing and oozing out your sides.

[Chris_Really_Rocks]

@Dnarris -- I know that 200-300 is unrealistic for most people -- in fact, although I would pay that amount for DA:O if I had to, I'd have to cut down on on purchasing other games -- which I'd do. (I probably spend $500-$700 per year games and $1000-$2000 per year on gaming hardware for my PC (and consoles, but I have them all now so I probably won't be buying any more of them until they come out). One important thing to note, as a rational person, I don't take into account what a price "should be" (unless I can actually get it for lower somewhere else) when I decide to purchase something. I simply decide whether or not the game is worth more to me than the dollars it costs to buy it. To me, DA:O is worth 200-300 (maybe more actually) so, paying $50-60 is a no brainer.



My point was that because most people won't pay that amount for a game, the small microtransactions allows Bioware to extract more profit from people by buying stuff in amounts they can stomach.



As for what "should" be included in the game originally --- I have no idea what you're talking about. What "should" be in the game originally should be, from Bioware's perspective, that amount of content that will allow them to maximize their profits. I really don't understand what people mean by "X" should be included in the game as if there was some standard for such things apart from what the market will bear.



Because I am an idiosyncratic, niche buyer, I am in favor of whatever increases my chances of having Bioware make more of the same rather than more of ME or Sonic (although I like ME, just less). If that means paying more to get the same amount, that's fine -- like I said, I for one would pay more if I had to regardless.

[Dnarris]

deadrockstar wrote...

I'd just like to say I enjoyed Warden's Keep and would like to see more of the same. However, I don't agree with the pricing - not because I can't afford it, but because I believe it an excessive revenue stream that appears designed to maximise porfitability i.e. it's going to shareholders and stakeholders, not into Bioware's development budget. If Bioware can come out and say otherwise, I'd be interested to hear that. I suspect that will never happen, though.

That, for me, is where my value is lost.

Also, it looks like DLC is replacing a more traditional expansion revenue model for Bioware. Forum members have repeatedly asked on their plans for DLC and expansions in threads Bioware are reading and responding to - even taking the time to answer questions like, "will there be waffles?"

I will pay for DLC (and probably moan a bit on the forums, as is human nature ) if expansion development is not affected by them. What I'm not willing to do is fund the death of DA:O (or any other game). I want to play more DA:O, DLCs are not more when they're a series of disjointed and short lived independent quests. I will happily play them to fill in time between expansions, but I'm not hanging around for 2 years to play an hour every month just because. I'll invest my time in another game in that case (though of course stick around to mod!)

Good points all around.

What you are getting with DLCs are stand alone tidbits of content that, in the end, do not add any sort of intergration with the rest of the game, excluding the interactions of Shale.

With a full fledged expansion you get content that is more intergrated with the rest of the game which actually changes the experience you have through out the original game and the new content. The current DLC really has very little game changing aspects, beyond a new companion.

They will eventually release an expansion to draw interest back into the game after it fades, but it will be more likely a tool to sell more DLC which will net them more profit than box sales ever could. Essentially the consumer receives so little from the DLC for the prices they pay with a rather significant depreciation in the value of their currency, but it is easily overlooked.

Modifié par Dnarris, 20 novembre 2009 - 09:42 .

[Chris_Really_Rocks]

Monstruo696 wrote...

Chris_Really_Rocks wrote...

I would be willing to pay about $200-300 for a game like this.

Excuse me, but I do believe you're full of it.

In fact, it's overflowing and oozing out your sides.

And how would you know that, pray tell?  If I had to pay that much to get this type of game, I'd pay it.  I don't, so great -- I get the same amount of utility for less than what it's worth to me.  That's the true beauty of economics. Don't believe me, fine.  Only way we'll ever know is if a game like this is released that can't be obtained for less than $200-300. 

It's not that much to me in light of my total gaming budget -- but I'd have to cut back on other games (that are worth less to me) obviously.

[daguest]

i enjoyed the stone prisoner

i enjoyed the warden keep dlc

i will pay for the next one. I have no problem about it. And i don't like anybody tell me it's not normal to pay for it, because it's my choice. I don't discuss your choices about Cleveland whatever (there is an ocean between your country and mine, i don't even know what they are ), don't discuss about my choices.

When you buy a cheeseburger in a fast food, is there people coming to tell you there far too expensive for what they are ? I hope there isn't. In a democracy you have the right to sell a cheeseburger, and the right to buy it. And you also have the right to think it's too expensive. But telling it to the guy is very impolite.

[Dnarris]

daguest wrote...

i enjoyed the stone prisoner
i enjoyed the warden keep dlc
i will pay for the next one. I have no problem about it. And i don't like anybody tell me it's not normal to pay for it, because it's my choice. I don't discuss your choices about Cleveland whatever (there is an ocean between your country and mine, i don't even know what they are ), don't discuss about my choices.
When you buy a cheeseburger in a fast food, is there people coming to tell you there far too expensive for what they are ? I hope there isn't. In a democracy you have the right to sell a cheeseburger, and the right to buy it. And you also have the right to think it's too expensive. But telling it to the guy is very impolite.

I would see your point if some how someone was actually infringing upon your rights.

But telling someone not to state their opinions, because you have a different view seems to be nearly the samething that you are making a statement about.

Modifié par Dnarris, 20 novembre 2009 - 09:50 .

[Valmy]

SkippyMcGee88 wrote...
I wouldn't feel so self-entitled to think that Bioware was making DLC just for you(the intended fanboy). You're
living some sort of e-relationship there, that doesn't exist. They're making the game for profits not to appease their loyalists. I mean you do see that giant red EA logo coming off the dragon on the opening intro don't you...

Saying your 5, 7, 15 bucks is keeping them going, is like the other person telling me my 5, 7, 15 means nothing to them...

I was simply accepting the premise offered they were made for the fanboys.  Even if that is true what is wrong with that?  Anyway there is no e-relationship.  Bioware makes products I enjoy and I am happy to help their bottom line.  If a time comes they stop making products I like I won't buy them....like I didn't care for NWN so I did not buy any more games in that series.  If buying products I like makes me swindled I am willing to be conned by every company I do business with.

Modifié par Valmy, 20 novembre 2009 - 10:30 .

[Osprey39]

Dnarris wrote...

Chris_Really_Rocks wrote...

All this moaning about DLC annoys me. The more profit Bioware makes, the more likely that they are to continue to produce this kind of game. Frankly, I would be willing to pay about $200-300 for a game like this -- that's what it's worth to me. Most people won't shell out more than $50 - $60 bucks for a pc -- console game, because that's what most all of them cost and because most people won't pay more than that up front. Microtransactions allow Bioware to capture money from people like me and others who love these games and would be willing to pay more than we do. Those for whom games like this are worth only $50-$60 worth of utility won't pay for more stuff simple as that.

So, bottom line is DLC is a good thing that allows Bioware to come closer to maximizing its profits from a product that is far less popular and lucrative than something like MW2 or Halo or even Mass Effect. So what's that mean? Increased chance of us getting more games like this and, as a result, ultimately paying more for them. Do I really give a damn that I pay more? Not really. Just as long as I get more of this style of RPG, I'll pay just about anything.

Your stance is economically unrealistic for most people. Most people won't pay $200-300 for a single game, because the notion is ridiculous. If you wish to make a donation to Bioware of an extra $250 send the check. I'm sure they won't turn it away.

If they could maximize profit by charging $200-$300 for the game (and I'm not saying they could), you know what I would say to those people?  Tough crap.  Game companies are not obligated to provide cheap entertainment for the masses.  Now it may well be in their best interest to do so but they are not obligated to do it. 

[Tekbear]

*sigh* and yet another DLC bashing thread

[Monstruo696]

Oh god, I stepped all over it. Good job, I come back to this thread only to find all this bull**** lying around.

[Velz]

While there's a few flaws in the OP's logic, I will say this..

I have this crazy feeling that if the cost of all DLC was $3, 95% of anyone that has the capability to purchase it WOULD purchase it and they'd end up making mroe money overall than at current prices.

[Monstruo696]

Velz wrote...



I have this crazy feeling that if the cost of all DLC was $3, 95% of anyone that has the capability to purchase it WOULD purchase it and they'd end up making mroe money overall than at current prices.

SSSSSSSH

GOD, You gotta come in here with your reason and logic dangling all over the place and making sense.

Shame on you.

[Dnarris]

Osprey39 wrote...

If they could maximize profit by charging $200-$300 for the game (and I'm not saying they could), you know what I would say to those people?  Tough crap.  Game companies are not obligated to provide cheap entertainment for the masses.  Now it may well be in their best interest to do so but they are not obligated to do it. 

I'm sorry, but I am misunderstanding. When you say, "You know what I would say to those people? Tough crap." What people are you referring to? People that would pay $200-300 for a game or those that could not?

I agree Game companies are not obligated to provide cheap entertainment, nor do I believe I mentioned anyones obligations.

However, if we are discussing obligations, I do believe that it is a responsible outlook to feel obligated to make sure that you and I as consumers are getting the most value for our currency and to make sure that our currencys value isn't being depreciated from one aspect to another while they are so closely related. 

I'm not sure that the logic of getting less for more really makes much sense to me.

[poofpoof]

SkippyMcGee88 wrote...


DLC, Micro-Transactions, etc... Are not about "improving" the game, they are about making that Company/Developer/Publisher MORE PROFITS.

Plain and Simple...

what you and  your ilks don't seem to understand is that game itself is about making profits.

once you realize this you'll also realize that the rest of your post is just fluff

plain and simple

[Mason Reed]

Chris_Really_Rocks wrote...

Monstruo696 wrote...

Chris_Really_Rocks wrote...

I would be willing to pay about $200-300 for a game like this.

Excuse me, but I do believe you're full of it.

In fact, it's overflowing and oozing out your sides.

And how would you know that, pray tell?  If I had to pay that much to get this type of game, I'd pay it.  I don't, so great -- I get the same amount of utility for less than what it's worth to me.  That's the true beauty of economics. Don't believe me, fine.  Only way we'll ever know is if a game like this is released that can't be obtained for less than $200-300. 

It's not that much to me in light of my total gaming budget -- but I'd have to cut back on other games (that are worth less to me) obviously.

For the record:  I would pay $200+ for this game.  As a matter of fact, I've done exactly that in the past -- I bought an X-Box for the sole purpose of being able to play KOTR several months earlier than I would have otherwise.  I'll admit, my financial situation alows me alot more freedom in my gaming budget than that of most people, and I'm not about send Bioware a donation for $150 out of the kindness of my heart, but there are a few people out there that would pay a signficant premium for a game that they want.

As far as I can tell Bioware (and EA) is in a a small box, looking for a way out:

1) You can make and sell games marketed at the "casual gamers" (like the Sims) with low developement costs and lots of units sold at $50 / copy and make money hand over fist
2) You can make and sell games marketed at the "hardcore gamers" (like DA:O) and have high developement costs and sell (in comparison to a "casual game") relatively few units sold at $50 / copy and make less money (possibly no money at all).

In the long-term, strategy #2 is, well, a less than ideal approach to take.  There are several approaches you can take to improve matteres:

1) increase the price per game.  As has been pointed out in this thread, this isn't feasible -- the market has decided that games should cost no more than $60 and they won't stand for increases beyond this amount (despite inflation, and despite the fact that a modern game is quite a bit more expensive to develop than a game in 1990, when this "standard" was set).
2) Reduce developement costs.  Indie game developers can get away with this (and do, quite successfully, making "retro" games).  Big name developers (the ones that appear in boxes in Walmart and GameStop) -- each game must include more (expensive) graphical glitz / multimedia features / shiny things than the last one, or it won't sell many units.
3) Increase sales.  Anti-piarcy measures are aimed at this, and we all know how well /that/ works.  "Better games" -- e.g. fancy graphics, all spoken dialog, toolset, inovative game playe -- increases developement costs and gets you a one time only boost in sales.  Once a shiny new feature has been included in a game, it establishes a new baseline which must be included in your next game or it "sucks".  All you have achieved by offering the new feature is to drive up the costs of all of your future games.
4) Find a way to make money on a game after it is released:  MMORPGs are the biggest example of this -- DLC is an attempt to do something similar in the single player market.  Yes, MMORPGs have ongoing costs and generate a continious stream of new content -- but the monthly "hours of new content" vs. subscription fee is lousy.  DLC is the same way -- you pay a lot of money for a relatively small amount of content.
4a) Subsidize your developement costs by releasing several independent full price games all sharing the same engine -- see BG1 / BG2 / IWD / Planescape.  Of course, the developement cost of the engine makes up a much lower percentage of the total developement cost of a game today, which makes this less effective.
5) Leave the "hard core gamers" to the indie developers, and concentrate all of your resources on low cost / high profit games for the "casual gamer".

If DA:O DLC is a flop (regardless of whether it is because "doesn't offer a good value for the money" or "not what I was looking for" or "I won't buy software unless it is in a box" or "I don't have an internet connection") then I'm pretty sure that EA is going to go with option #5.  Of course, they'll probably offer Bioware developers a chance to join the "Sims 45" team -- maybe.  Or maybe the Bioware employees will find another publisher that is willing to take a chance on a game that has spiraling costs, you can't raise the price, and you can't make any money after the sale, and so forth.  Although there really aren't many publishers like that left, are there?  Or maybe Bioware will start to self-publish -- but that would make them an Indie developer, and likely result in download only games without features like 100% voicing that the market demands.

<shrug>

Clearly, nobody is going to force anyone to purchase DLC.  One person not buying DLC isn't going to put Bioware out of business and it might encourage Bioware to make a full-fledged expanasion pack.  Or it might convince Bioware that this is all a waste of time and close up shop. 

You don't pay your money and you still take your chances...  

[Dnarris]

Chris_Really_Rocks wrote...

@Dnarris -- I know that 200-300 is unrealistic for most people -- in fact, although I would pay that amount for DA:O if I had to, I'd have to cut down on on purchasing other games -- which I'd do. (I probably spend $500-$700 per year games and $1000-$2000 per year on gaming hardware for my PC (and consoles, but I have them all now so I probably won't be buying any more of them until they come out). One important thing to note, as a rational person, I don't take into account what a price "should be" (unless I can actually get it for lower somewhere else) when I decide to purchase something. I simply decide whether or not the game is worth more to me than the dollars it costs to buy it. To me, DA:O is worth 200-300 (maybe more actually) so, paying $50-60 is a no brainer.

My point was that because most people won't pay that amount for a game, the small microtransactions allows Bioware to extract more profit from people by buying stuff in amounts they can stomach.

As for what "should" be included in the game originally --- I have no idea what you're talking about. What "should" be in the game originally should be, from Bioware's perspective, that amount of content that will allow them to maximize their profits. I really don't understand what people mean by "X" should be included in the game as if there was some standard for such things apart from what the market will bear.

Because I am an idiosyncratic, niche buyer, I am in favor of whatever increases my chances of having Bioware make more of the same rather than more of ME or Sonic (although I like ME, just less). If that means paying more to get the same amount, that's fine -- like I said, I for one would pay more if I had to regardless.

I can't argue with you on your personal logic as I am in no way telling you or anyone else what they should do, but more of what they might consider upon making purchases. If you're willing to pay exorbant prices, because it somehow fits you or your budget that is fine. However, you would be considered on the extreme end of the economic model most likely representing the high price a person would pay for a good or service while I am attempt to speak from more of the median of the economic model. As I am not advocating the abolishment of DLC (Though it might not be such a bad thing).

The idea is that the DLC is currently not providing the same value as the retail game has and thus spending money at the prices that have been set depreciates the value of our currency or lowers our purchasing power which in reality means that you're immediately paying more for less. I don't find unreasonable to expect my dollar to keep its purchasing power when dealing with the same product in a extremely short span of time.The fact that my dollar means less from retail box to DLC is offputting to say the least.

I've excersied my personal choice as a consumer by not purchasing any DLC, but the idea that I am attempting to convey doesn't have need to address consumer independancies. It is directly addressing the economic value of the DLC purchases.

As to what it may or may not allow Bioware to do is less of a concern to me than is making sure that I am getting the full value of my dollar or the nearest equivalency that I can when making my purchases. The way the DLCs are priced does not do that in the least. In fact is vastly skewed.

As for what "should" be in the game, if you go back and read my post I wasn't stating what should or should be in the game I was merely pointing out the practice of leaving out content in order to make more profit off of DLC. Which EA has already done with games like "The Sims". As I've said before I haven't noticed that practice in DA:O yet, but I am certainly vigilant enough to be aware of it should it take place.

[Brahox]

Atlest your not a Detroit Lions fan.... we can trade teams if you like. sad face

[Gabo]

A lot of people have answered many of the questions on DLC and how they affect games, and many have hit the nail on the head. 

However, I'd like to add a few more things:
An epic game with production values like Dragon Age:
Origins takes a lot of love, time and resources to build: animators, artists,
writers, designers, programmers, QA, voice actors, production managers, misc
staff, plus building rent, services, food, distribution and marketing, just to
name a few. If you enjoyed DA and feel like expanding the experience a little
bit more, purchasing DLC should not be problem. We believe it adds to the game
and we do our best to make all the DLC good value for the money.

In addition, consumers are becoming more and more demanding (rightfully so), meaning that
only the games with the highest production values remain in demand. Dragon Age
is such a game and it not only has great production values, it also has an epic
scope and a lot of replayability. DLC adds to this. It's not just the raw hour
of gameplay you get, it also adds even more replayability to the full game. And
it's not just fetch quests and random battles either, these are modules that have
professional quality with a full engaging story including voice-overs and
cutscenes attached to them. 





For those that compare the "hour per cent"
value of DLC with the original game, you should realize this: DLC takes as much
effort to create as any part of the original game, however, DLC will not sell
as much as the full game because only a fraction of the people who played the
full game will feel the need to play more (however good the game or the DLC is).
Therefore, DLC will never sell as much as a full standalone game but it is
something that a considerable number of people appreciate. We do our best to
make sure that you are getting great value for your gaming dollar. 



Finally, people seem to believe that DLC involves taking a
complete game and removing parts of it so they can be sold for extra cash but
that is not how it works, at least, not here. There was a plan all along to
have DLC so that fans could have extra content without having to wait months or
years for a full sequel or expansion pack to come out, but all the content for
DLC was created specifically for this purpose; all of it was written or
finished well after the game design and story was locked. DLC allows games to
have new content more frequently and adds to the revenue of the IP, which turns
into more resources to create cool new content. That's just the way it works. 



For those that enjoy our game and its extra modules, I
hope this explanation can make you appreciate the value of DLC and enjoy what
we have to release currently and in the future.

[DJoker35]

Gabochido wrote...

For those that enjoy our game and its extra modules, I
hope this explanation can make you appreciate the value of DLC and enjoy what
we have to release currently and in the future.

A good, and quite frankly, unneeded explanation. I never understood what the heck the "outrage" was about. Go forbid we get the option to add more to our game should we choose to do so.

Count me among the many (many more than ever post in these forums) that love the game and look forward to more and more DLC to add to the experience.

[aries1001]

I think Warren Buffet once said that cost is how much money has gone into making a a thing (i.e. DLC) e.g. how a thing is is priced; contraty to this - value is what you're getting for your money.

And the problem as I see it, many people don't feel they get enough value for their money when they by a 1½ hour add-on for game that is priced at 7 US dollars or when they're buying a 1 hour DLC that lasts about an hour for 5 US dollars. In my Danish currency 7 $=35 crowns and 5 $=25 crowns. [As a side note, I just spent 35 kr. on candy; it tasted great, but left an empty and nourished feeling inside - I'm sure the DLC will not to this...].

The point is people sometimes value things differently; for instance I value games like DA: Origins and Risen, other people value a 50-60 $ game like a 8-10 Modern Warfare 2 game. Last time I went to the movies, I paid 15 $ for a ticket to a 2 hour movie. Warden's Keep's price is 7 $, about half the price and last 1½-2 hours (or 45 minutes if you're in a hurry).

I also think people's expectations might have tuned them into something differently: Bioware did day, at one point, that they would do something like the Premium Modules for DLC in DA:Origins.

Thus people are disappointed when they realize (find out) that they have to pay 5-7 $ for DLC that's only will last them 45-90 minutes (tops 2½ hours)

Most people, perhaps, don't realize that many fans and casul gamers and just the average Joe on the street, expects all NPCs etc. in a game to be fully voiced. And this costs a lot of money to do.Thus the the relatively high price for these DLCs....

On the other hand, lowering the price to half of what it is, i.e. 2.5$ - 3$ could ensure that you doubled the sales. [Henry Ford did this I believe when introducing model T?] To compare again, I've just spent 5$ on coffee and 5$ on a lottety ticket.

The basic thing is this:
(and we're talking paying for DLC here, not the main plot of the game)

What do you value and how much (money) is you willing to sacrifice to get it?

Modifié par aries1001, 21 novembre 2009 - 12:20 .

[Dnarris]

Gabochido wrote...

A lot of people have answered many of the questions on DLC and how they affect games, and many have hit the nail on the head. 

However, I'd like to add a few more things:
An epic game with production values like Dragon Age:
Origins takes a lot of love, time and resources to build: animators, artists,
writers, designers, programmers, QA, voice actors, production managers, misc
staff, plus building rent, services, food, distribution and marketing, just to
name a few. If you enjoyed DA and feel like expanding the experience a little
bit more, purchasing DLC should not be problem. We believe it adds to the game
and we do our best to make all the DLC good value for the money.

In addition, consumers are becoming more and more demanding (rightfully so), meaning that
only the games with the highest production values remain in demand. Dragon Age
is such a game and it not only has great production values, it also has an epic
scope and a lot of replayability. DLC adds to this. It's not just the raw hour
of gameplay you get, it also adds even more replayability to the full game. And
it's not just fetch quests and random battles either, these are modules that have
professional quality with a full engaging story including voice-overs and
cutscenes attached to them. 





For those that compare the "hour per cent"
value of DLC with the original game, you should realize this: DLC takes as much
effort to create as any part of the original game, however, DLC will not sell
as much as the full game because only a fraction of the people who played the
full game will feel the need to play more (however good the game or the DLC is).
Therefore, DLC will never sell as much as a full standalone game but it is
something that a considerable number of people appreciate. We do our best to
make sure that you are getting great value for your gaming dollar. 



Finally, people seem to believe that DLC involves taking a
complete game and removing parts of it so they can be sold for extra cash but
that is not how it works, at least, not here. There was a plan all along to
have DLC so that fans could have extra content without having to wait months or
years for a full sequel or expansion pack to come out, but all the content for
DLC was created specifically for this purpose; all of it was written or
finished well after the game design and story was locked. DLC allows games to
have new content more frequently and adds to the revenue of the IP, which turns
into more resources to create cool new content. That's just the way it works. 



For those that enjoy our game and its extra modules, I
hope this explanation can make you appreciate the value of DLC and enjoy what
we have to release currently and in the future.

You have a very sensible and poignant post here.

While I can empathize with you from a personal view and by all means feel that most of your sentiments are correct from economical view I cannot do more than look out for myself and other consumers mainly, because how we spend our money dictates the kind of quality we can demand and overall how much we receive for the currency we can spend.

I am very curious as to how Bioware and EA came up with their current pricing model when deciding what to value the DLC at. If I knew that much, beyond assuming that they've rested on the highest princples of captalsim, that being make as much profit as possible, perhaps my view might be altered in some way.

Most gamers have respect for what it takes to develop a game such as DA:O, but at the sametime that isn't their main concern as I am more than apt to believe that companies aren't as concerned with providing the most they can for the consumers dollar as long as they are remaining competative.