230 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

LordPaul256 wrote...

As to why, I'll quote Jcarlo123 from earlier in the thread, since he hit it on the head:

Jcarlo123 wrote...
 What’s to prevent EA (or another company)
from, for example, releasing a super cheap version of Battlefield 3 or
DA2 on steam, then selling all of the “real” game content via "DLC"
through their in game stores? It would essentially be a back door free 2
play model where steam would have to host the game for virtually
nothing, while the publishers take all the profits by selling the rest
of the game content via their own in game stores.

Well maybe they should wait for that hypothetical situation to occur before being unreasonable.

LordPaul256 wrote...

It's sound financial policy.  EA is the only one upset that he can't wear his trenchcoat to school anymore. 

Valve are trying to increase their revenue stream by ensuring they get a cut of all DLC sales I don't see why that should be applauded when it goes against a practice that extends back years and is at our expense. They aren't doing anything altruistic here.

I've just read elsewhere that Saints Row 3 will have a store in the game which will presumably link direct to THQ. Are Valve going to pull that game now for the same reason.

[asindre]

Gisle Aune wrote...

Not to critizise Origin more, but multiplying the price by 10 and put NOK behind it does not really seem fair for us Norwegians.

Mass Effect 3 prepurchase 599kr == 111,50$..what...the...****...
Edit, that was the deluxe edition. It seems to cost 59.99$ for USers though anyways, so it's still abomable.

I'm sorry, have you not bought a game in Norway for the last ten years? All games cost the same here so nice strawman argument.

[LordPaul256]

Morroian wrote...



Well maybe they should wait for that hypothetical situation to occur before being unreasonable.

It's not unreasonable.  EA entered into an agreement
with Valve.  New games/services on Steam after a certain date had to
obey these rules.  This established agreement was broken.  That's
reasonable.

It is unreasonable for a business to wait for a
business practice to occur, the retroactively fight against it.  There's
a reason such things are laid out in advance.  Why wait to be screwed
over by a business partner?  I certainly don't in my business.  

Morroian wrote...

Valve
are trying to increase their revenue stream by ensuring they get a cut
of all DLC sales I don't see why that should be applauded when it goes
against a practice that extends back years and is at our expense. They
aren't doing anything altruistic here.

I've just read elsewhere
that Saints Row 3 will have a store in the game which will presumably
link direct to THQ. Are Valve going to pull that game now for the same
reason.

DLC is becoming a centerpiece in the
video gaming industry.  Steam sells video games.  Steam should be
applauded for seeing the trend, and coming to an agreement with many
different publishers.  Even Microsoft jumped on board with this. 
The option is there to buy DLC either through Games for Windows Live or
Steam, and both methods work.  It's a good preventative measure for
staying in business, and for the customers it keeps all the purchases
and minor transactions in one convenient location (if they so choose).

Saints
Row 3 is still for sale on Steam.  In fact, it's featured in their
front page scroll.  I'm going to assume that since games were pulled for
not also (not just) offering their DLC through Steam, that Saints Row 3
will have both options, like many other games currently have.

[Morroian]

scyphozoa wrote...

I personally don't think Valve initiated the removal of EA games. I think EA intentionally and knowingly changed their DLC distribution model to violate Valve's policies, this forced Valve to remove EA products. EA did this knowing the outcome would result in the removal of EA titles.

EA have not changed their distribution model at least not for DA2. Valve have however recently changed their terms of service.

[Merci357]

scyphozoa wrote...

I personally don't think Valve initiated the removal of EA games. I think EA intentionally and knowingly changed their DLC distribution model to violate Valve's policies, this forced Valve to remove EA products. EA did this knowing the outcome would result in the removal of EA titles.

It's the other way around. EA, or in this case their BioWare division, sells their latest DLC exactly the same way like they did with DA:O or ME2 before. Their own store was the only option to do so - and this is still the case with "Legacy".

However, Valve changed their policy regarding, they want their share of revenue for DLC now - fair game, their house (Steam)...

That said, if EA doesn't want to be "hosted" on Steam, why not? Can you buy Starcraft 2 there, or preorder Diablo 3? And Blizzard is a major PC developer, and they do just fine without Steam.

[Travie]

EA will come crawling back to Steam when their PC sales start dropping.

[StingingVelvet]

Travie wrote...

EA will come crawling back to Steam when their PC sales start dropping.

Just like Blizzard!

Oh wait...

[Sutekh]

Microsoft will come crawling to Steam when their PC sales start dropping.

Seriously, though, that's just business people doing business-ish things, all with probably very altruistic reasons, as usual. As far as I'm concerned, they have the same prices for games on day 1, as does everyone. Steam has great sales, and EA has those little 10€ gifts from time to time for recent games of theirs.

The only thing I have against Origin is the name. It confuses me to no end for a good three seconds each time I read it in a post here.

[Travie]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Travie wrote...

EA will come crawling back to Steam when their PC sales start dropping.

Just like Blizzard!

Oh wait...

Blizzard still has a deal for future titles with steam, they just had a disagreement with some other businessy things.

I hope your kidding about Microsoft though, they even buy adspace all the time, like with Fable 3. 

[Cutlass Jack]

Don't get me started with the mess Fable 3 was via Steam.

[Travie]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Don't get me started with the mess Fable 3 was via Steam.

Can't blame steam for selling bad games

Or was there some other issue?

[Morroian]

scyphozoa wrote...

Morroian wrote...
EA have not changed their distribution model at least not for DA2. Valve have however recently changed their terms of service.

Interesting, I just read an article about this, it sounds like Steam is following in Apple's footsteps. I like the sound of Steam going on the offensive.

Dunno why, the Apple model is not great for consumers.

[Cutlass Jack]

Travie wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Don't get me started with the mess Fable 3 was via Steam.

Can't blame steam for selling bad games

Or was there some other issue?

Other issue. If you bought via steam you were forced to run both it and GFWL. Which was only the start of the fun. If you wanted any DLC you had to buy it through both programs, not just Steam. It was a perfect representation of what happens when you try to force the new steam rules on top of a pre-existing system. Just a mess.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 28 juillet 2011 - 07:17 .

[nijnij]

This is extremely silly. So, suppose I want to download Legacy, does that mean I have to re-buy Dragon Age 2 on another platform first ? It's just plain stupid, I don't care which company is responsible, they both are IMO. "Either you let us buy you or you GTFO". Capitalism in all its splendor. How about, you know, coexisting ?! I hope they'll find an intelligent way to settle this rather than keep playing my-willy's-bigger-than-your-willy.

Modifié par nijnij, 28 juillet 2011 - 08:28 .

[LordPaul256]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Other issue. If you bought via steam you were forced to run both it and GFWL. Which was only the start of the fun. If you wanted any DLC you had to buy it through both programs, not just Steam. It was a perfect representation of what happens when you try to force the new steam rules on top of a pre-existing system. Just a mess.

You've never played Dawn of War on Steam.  This is not new.  At all. 

[LordPaul256]

nijnij wrote...

This is extremely silly. So, suppose I want to download Legacy, does that mean I have to re-buy Dragon Age 2 on another platform first ? It's just plain stupid, I don't care which company is responsible, they both are IMO. "Either you let us buy you or you GTFO". Capitalism in all its splendor. How about, you know, coexisting ?! I hope they'll find an intelligent way to settle this rather than keep playing my-willy's-bigger-than-your-willy.

No.  If you bought DA2 on Steam, you will always be able to download it on Steam.  (Unlike Origin, which can "retire" games, and even close your account if it's innactive for too long.  Ugh).

At that point, you just have to download Legacy and install it.  Simple.

I have Fallout: NV on Steam.  I play mods with it.  It's just like having the game installed from disk, except the install directory is changed.  

[4bs.zer0]

If Bioware releases a regular expansion for DA2 how will that be handled for Steam users?

[Cutlass Jack]

nijnij wrote...

This is extremely silly. So, suppose I want to download Legacy, does that mean I have to re-buy Dragon Age 2 on another platform first ? It's just plain stupid, I don't care which company is responsible, they both are IMO. "Either you let us buy you or you GTFO". Capitalism in all its splendor. How about, you know, coexisting ?! I hope they'll find an intelligent way to settle this rather than keep playing my-willy's-bigger-than-your-willy.

Nope you buy Dragon Age DLC the same way you always have. This arguement is about Steam wanting the DLC a secondary way (through them) instead of directly from this site.

[nijnij]

Aw, in this case I guess Steam is the blackmailer. Although I don't see the problem of DLC being available on both platforms.

[In Exile]

[quote]AloraKast wrote...
For content that was meant to be part of the main game but, for whatever reason (generally time constraints), it wasn't and had to be offered as DLC (be it Day 1 or otherwise) why not offer it to your fans for free and any additional content that follows later and wasn't actually meant to be part of the main game to be offered to the fans for a price?[/quote]

Why should a company develop that content for free? If Bioware in 2002 had to cut content for KoTOR, should they have keep paying employees to develop the content and then release a free "KoTOR cut content CD" for free? 

There's a better reason to give away the content for free as free DLC: it will make gamers felate you so hard you might see increased sales for your base game and solid word-of-mouth advertising, but apparently only CD Projeckt is smart enough to do this. 

[quote]Or offer the content that was meant to be part of the main game but didn't make it in in time for free and instead of producing a number of these short DLCs, why not focus your attention on producing a solid, good quality and lengthy expansion that you can charge $20 - $30 for? [/quote]

You can charge more for less for DLC, obviously. Business wise it's the better practice. Not to mention the expansion by Bioware (i.e. Awakening) was sold at full price. 

A little bit of consumer goodwill goes a looong way... but everyone has their limits.[/quote]

[AloraKast]

In Exile wrote...

AloraKast wrote...
For content that was meant to be part of the main game but, for whatever reason (generally time constraints), it wasn't and had to be offered as DLC (be it Day 1 or otherwise) why not offer it to your fans for free and any additional content that follows later and wasn't actually meant to be part of the main game to be offered to the fans for a price?

Why should a company develop that content for free? If Bioware in 2002 had to cut content for KoTOR, should they have keep paying employees to develop the content and then release a free "KoTOR cut content CD" for free? 

There's a better reason to give away the content for free as free DLC: it will make gamers felate you so hard you might see increased sales for your base game and solid word-of-mouth advertising, but apparently only CD Projeckt is smart enough to do this. 

Well, the point that I was trying to make was the concept of releasing a bare bones "full" game followed by a slew of these small DLC content for a price... especially content that is clearly meant to be part of the main game (as opposed to additional missions/campaigns that build upon the main game)... that's what I find objectionable. Here is a link to a post in another thread which, I think, illustrates this point very well:

http://social.biowar...75506/2#7979302

I mean, if that's what we're having to deal with, wouldn't you feel cheated a bit?

I have two different experiences to compare here; one with Bioware/EA and one with CDProjekt. Which experience do you think makes me feel appreciated and valued as a consumer and which experience makes me feel cheated and taken advantage of? And so which developer will I be loyal to and support in the future?

I understand both companies are businesses and the goal is to maximize profits. But clearly there are many, many different ways to go about reaching that goal and here we are shown two seemingly opposite paths. But only one of these two paths will prove advantageous and profitable in the long run.

Or offer the content that was meant to be part of the main game but didn't make it in in time for free and instead of producing a number of these short DLCs, why not focus your attention on producing a solid, good quality and lengthy expansion that you can charge $20 - $30 for?

You can charge more for less for DLC, obviously. Business wise it's the better practice. Not to mention the expansion by Bioware (i.e. Awakening) was sold at full price. 

Sorry, would you mind ellaborating upon that a bit? I mean, the bit about the expansion being charged full price. Honestly can't recall the original Awakening price (I got mine on sale), but my point was that you can charge more for a fully lenght expansion, as consumers expect having to pay more for a beefier product.  I suppose overall it may very well be the case that many small DLCs turn better profits for the company, as they are short content that don't require as much manpower and resources to develop, as opposed to a full length and solid expansion, which requires more resources to develop and generally there is a limit to the maximum price you can set that consumers will accept.

Which brings me back to the paragraph above dealing with consumer loyalty and goodwill...

Edit: Added the last sentence.

Modifié par AloraKast, 28 juillet 2011 - 04:12 .

[Nozybidaj]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Travie wrote...

EA will come crawling back to Steam when their PC sales start dropping.

Just like Blizzard!

Oh wait...

EA doesn't have a development studio on their roster like Blizzard.  Blizz doesn't sell on Steam, because frankly they don't need to.

What it comes down to is if I have to make a choice between Steam and Origin, well, that's not a very tough choice to make.  So long EA games.