10 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockworm503]

 In another forum I been getting into a heated argument with this guy.
Ok its more like his fanboyism losing it whenever I say anything negative about Saints Row.
Where this came from is I find out that Volition is already talking about DLC for Saints Row 3......
I got a bit mad and took it out on the SR3 thread over there.
This guy jumps down my throat for it saying "they need to be greedy to stay in business"
what... what i... don't.  Such blatant fanboyism for a company trying to cheat you out of your money.
So where do we draw the line?
I for one refuse to buy anything a company is coming out with before the game is even out.  If we keep making excuses like this is it really such a stretch to imagine 20 years from now having to put in money per mission?

[Stanley Woo]

Rockworm503 wrote...
Such blatant fanboyism for a company trying to cheat you out of your money.
So where do we draw the line?

"We" draw the line wherever "we" feel the need to. This isn't a matter of the government taking your job away from you or the military taking away your home. This is an commercial entertainment product, a luxury item that you can choose to buy or not. DLC is merely an additional product being offered that, again, you can choose to buy or not. As long as the choice remains yours and yours alone, I'm all right with DLC. If you don't feel DLC is worth the extra money, then that's totally fine. choose not to buy DLC, and all is rigth with the world. No one's choices have been taken away, and no one pays for something they don't want. Done.

I for one refuse to buy anything a company is coming out with before the game is even out.  If we keep making excuses like this is it really such a stretch to imagine 20 years from now having to put in money per mission?

Games are already being released episodically. Free-to-play MMOs charge for premium content like quest chains, area access, and special items. Casual/browser/Facebook games already have a microtransaction pay model. Map packs have been around longer than the "DLC" acronym became commonly used.

Comic books are essentially a pay-by-part serial. Anime is based on serialized comics. Books used to be serialized in magazines.

Forget about 20 years from now. Your "fear" has already happened and it's been around for a few years. The thing is, it's not the end of videogaming as we know it, nor is it the end of people buying videogames as we know it. In fact, serialized games, microtransactions, and DLC have worked out rather well for gamers. And who knows? 20 years from now, perhaps serialized games will be the norm, even for AAA titles.

So let's not let hysteria get the better of us, okay?

[Stanley Woo]

Rockworm503 wrote...
Yes Stanley your right its here and thats what scares me. People are willing to fork over a small fortune to get an edge in an MMO why should I be surprised that people will do the same for a single player game?
Its sad how pathetic some people's concept of value has gone lately. It feels like I'm paying for a full burger and only getting 1/4th of it and then have to pay 3 more times for the other 3 pieces.

Whoa, that's where the hysteria needs to be dialed down, Rockworm503. Value is completely subjective, and who's to say that it's not your "concept of value" that's "pathetic?" One could just as easily say that it feels like I'm paying for a full burger and not only getting everything I ordered but, in addition, having the option of buying delicious sliders to complement my meal!

I understand that you're not into DLC and don't feel they provide adequate value for the price, but really, insulting the opinions of those who disagree with you is hardly the way to make your case.

I miss the easy days where a game is whats on the disc or cartridge and I don't have to worry about content I'm missing out on just because I don't want to pay more money.
Most of ME2's DLC worked for me because it didn't feel like I was being cheated. They expand on the game with something more and I'll defend to my death bed the greatness that was Lair of The Shadow Broker.
Also Fallout 3 and New Vegas is doing it right too.

So... you don't like DLC as a concept except for the DLC that you like? Isn't that further evidence that the "value" of DLC is subjective? Come on, man. Surely you can see that your argument boils down to little more than "I like the stuff that I like, and I don't like th stuff I don't like"? Your first paragraph implies a categorical dislike of the concept of DLC, yet you're praising ME2's DLC.

[Stanley Woo]

Menthi44 wrote...

With all due respect - DLC is fine to have a price when it's optional; however let's take a look at Mass Effect 2's DLC 'Arrival'. The storyline to this DLC is critical to the entire series, considering that the beginning of Mass Effect 3 is based off the events within Arrival; yet to my knowledge, you still have to pay to aquire this critical section of the story if you really want to know what's going on. (I admit, I haven't gotten around to playing Arrival yet - But I am basing my statement off what I have heard about it.

Literally, of course Arrival is optional - But should such a thing have a price when it's important to the series' main storyline?

Fair enough. And I will ask the following questions not to try and badger you or dismiss your concerns, but to illustrate my point: Should you have to pay for ME3 since it's so crucial the Shepard's storyline? Should ME2 have a cost since it's bridging ME1 and ME3? Should any of the DLC cost anything since it's expanding the lore and the story of Shepard in important ways? What about the novels? Should they be free since you bought ME1? Should they also be free for those who got Mass Effect free with their DA2 purchase? You still have to pay for all of those and yet, according to your definition, these arguably "critical sections of the story" should ideally be free.

Never mind that they cost more than zero dollars, took more than zero time, and used more than zero people to produce, test, certify, and put up for sale.

Again, not trying to be a douche, but you're talking to a guy who's spent hundreds of dollars on Rock Band DLC.

[Stanley Woo]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

Remember when you could just about bet your life that a popular game got two full expansion packs? DLC seems to have killed that, now we just get a mission and a handful of items for a fiver a pop.

In my opinion, mainstream popular culture embracing videogames and the increased competition from all sorts of increasingly accessible other media (including movies, online, mobile, tablet, handheld, casual, and on demand products and venues)  is responsible for producers wanting to keep players engaged with their product for a longer period of time before their eyes and minds wander elsewhere.

[Stanley Woo]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

Remember when you could just about bet your life that a popular game got two full expansion packs? DLC seems to have killed that, now we just get a mission and a handful of items for a fiver a pop.

In my opinion, mainstream popular culture embracing videogames and the
increased competition from all sorts of increasingly accessible other
media (including movies, online, mobile, tablet, handheld, casual, and
on demand products and venues)  is responsible for producers wanting to
keep players engaged with their product for a longer period of time
before their eyes and minds wander elsewhere.

Expansions still happen, but until they are ready, you've got DLC to keep you playing the game.

[Stanley Woo]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

No no no, it's more like paying individually for extras on a dvd.

I would accept that analogy if videogames appeared in arcades first before becoming available for home use. but they're not. Generally, DVDs are avilable for those who liked the movie in theatres or those folks who didn't see it in theatres but still want to see it. The DVD extras are an incentive to purchase the physical product after maybe having seen it already.

Videogames are first-run products. Their incentives to buy include... well, the game itself. And now, of course, we have DLC included, vendor-specific items, and periodic DLC later on. Your movie analogy might be more apt if your movie ticket contained an unlock code to watch a featurette online, or if, upon presenting your movie ticket stub, you could purchase the gag reel for viewing on your mobile.

[Stanley Woo]

Dandynermite wrote...

Actually thinking about this a bit harder, there is a line that EA breach in every single game they make with an online mode, and thats giving you a one use code to play online. That is TOTALLY wrong. Say I buy Fifa 12 pre-owned, I pay for my internet, I pay for xbox live, and now I have to pay, to use the game I've paid for, to use the game on the online system I've already paid for, to use the internet I also pay for. If Day 1 DLCs are to combat pre-owned sales, then they need to scrap this online charge. (This isn't a problem with Bioware though, so its a bit irrelevant, but then Bioware is EA, and it's a forum not strictly about Bioware, as it starts with Saint's Row)

Even though you buy a pre-owned Toyota, and having paid for your license and insurance, you still have to pay when you travel toll roads, you have to pay for gas, you still have to pay for the food you get at a drive-through, and you still have to pay for the car wash. And if you want to use Toyota brand parts installed by a certified Toyota-licensed technician, well, I would think they would make you pay for that (assuming it's out of warranty, or course).

Sure, you buy FIFA pre-owned. Who are you paying for it? the game store, not the developer or publisher. Sure, you pay for internet. Who do you pay for that? Your ISP, not the developer or publisher of the game you're playing and whose online features you wish to access, since the internet's a huge place and full of many other things besides FIFA (like the BioWare Social Network). You paid for Xbox Live, awesome, it's a system I like. Who are you paying for that? Microsoft, not the developer or publisher of the game you're playing, since Xbox Live grants access to ALL online features, not just FIFA multiplayer.

So far, I'm not seeing any mention of paying the people who made/published the game in the first place, and you wish to crow about how unfair it all is? I don't mean to sound like a jerkface, but it seems like you're getting all the enjoyment out of the game without the developers or publishers making a cent off of you. Though I didn't see you mentioning that you also had to buy an Xbox and have electricity turned on, or that you also paid rent to have a place in which to play games, or the grocery bills you racked up so you didn't starve to death while playing. As an extreme case, maybe you need corrective lenses to see the monitor clearly. You had to pay for those too, didn't you?

The point is, none of that really has any bearing to the features of the game you are interested in, and neither the publisher nor the developer receive any monies from you for those things. Yes, it's a pain to have to pay more to access all the features you want, but like many hobbies, videogaming costs money. And at some point, companies gots to get paid.

[Stanley Woo]

Sorry, Ken, but I'm not going to talk about software piracy or any actual numbers involved in the business, because that's beyond the scope of this thread. I'm just trying to offer a perspective from the other side of the equation, the side of a business that employs a whole lot of people in a highly competitive industry and the kinds of things people don't normally think about because they're so used to the "consumer is always right, companies are always greedy and out to screw us." Before I joined the company, I was right there along with everyone else, and it wasn't until I'd been here a few years and got a couple of projects under my belt that I started to get that the business end of things is necessary, and is not always there to bilk the consumer. Why would it be? It needs to keep consumers, but it also wants to make as much money as possible.

Entire departments of math and money people deal with that sort of thing every day, in any big company. I don't envy them their job.

[Stanley Woo]

Let's try to rein it in and get back on topic, please. The discussion of whether software is a service or a product is not within the scope of this thread or this forum. Thank you.

[Stanley Woo]

AlanC9 wrote...
Are legal matters considered to be political questions?

Edit: Well, come to think of it, I guess I put politics in play myself when I stated that the US courts and Congress would do whatever they have to do to protect the interests of publishers.

Since very few of us are lawyers arguing this case in a court which could potentially affect how these things work in the future, it's rarely productive to have such debates. No matter who ends up "winning" the discussion here, nothing is changed. That's the danger of having debates on legality here, not to mention all the armchair lawyers jumping into the fray with their two cents. Better to keep it casual and friendly, I say.