137 réponses à ce sujet

[Menthi44]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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?

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?

[Homebound]

DLC feels like someone chopping off the limbs of a barbie doll and charging extra for stuff that should be there already.

[Weiser_Cain]

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.

[naughty99]

Stanley Woo wrote...

"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.

Very well said, Stanley.

As a business owner, I strongly support the right of every business in a free market economy to decide what kind of product it wants to make and at what price to sell it.

So long as the product is not dangerous or in violation of any laws, I do not wish to see this right subjugated.

Consumers, in turn, are completely at liberty to choose whether to buy such a product or not.

(and of course, they are also free to complain about it on the Internet 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

No one can stop the DLC creating ... It has incomes.

[Weiser_Cain]

It'll probably take someone going over the line to make a change, or you know the industry collapsing.

[Il Divo]

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?

While true, this argument also goes for every other dlc, expansion, or sequel ever designed. After Star Wars: Episode IV, came Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. After BGII, came Throne of Bhaal. After Warcraft III, we received the Frozen Throne. And after ME2, we have Lair of the Shadowbroker and Arrival.
 
All these things are considered optional, yet also continue the storyline of their respective products. But especially in the case of expansions, you are not getting game content equivalent to what you pay for. Truth be told, I'd rather Bioware release episodic dlc which lets me continue my ME2 file, instead of having to wait the full period before ME3.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 juillet 2011 - 06:16 .

[Weiser_Cain]

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

[Corto81]

The line SHOULD be drawn when a company charges a DLC AT LAUNCH.
And releases an incomplete game and then throws up bits to cash-in.

IMO, it's ridiculous, and that's why CDPR has my respect right now.
Charge me more for a complete game at launch, no problem.
Charge me a full price for a proper expansion.

But all the little DLCs a la Sebastian in DA2?

Sure the companies can throw it out and milk the money from people because the people are sadly willing to pay it...
But morally, I think it's cheap, and low, and whenever you throw out a sub-par game like DA2, you're gonna get the DLC mumbo-jumbo thrown in your face, rightfully or not.

[naughty99]

Corto81 wrote...

The line SHOULD be drawn when a company charges a DLC AT LAUNCH.
And releases an incomplete game and then throws up bits to cash-in.

-----
But all the little DLCs a la Sebastian in DA2?

If these DLCs are so little and insignificant, why do you feel the game is "incomplete" without them?

I enjoyed the game just fine without the Sebastian DLC and I have no interest in buying it.

[Dandynermite]

If its a game I like (for example Dragon Age: Origins) I will buy every single DLC that comes out even if its made before the game and cost £20 each. If its a game I don't like (Dragon Age 2) I won't buy any DLC even if it finishes the story or costs £0.20. Myself it doesn't at all bother me when its made, just as long as its good.

Cost, date made, doesn't bother me, just as long as its for a good game. (I've only found 5 games that I will buy DLC for, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2) so I'm pretty picky and that might be the reason why once a game interests me I buy everything, simply because there are so few games that really interest me. I mean I'm almost tenth prestige on CoD and haven't got one DLC yet

[Bryy_Miller]

Rockworm503 wrote...

umm its subjective to have DLC before the game is out and see it as greed?

DLC comes out before the actual game does? Where is this happening?

Do you mean PRE-ORDER DLC?

I like the DLC I like because it didn't feel like greed.

Complaining about things you have no intent on purchasing is not real logical, either.

You are missing the point.

He works for BioWare. You don't. It is literally impossible for him to miss the point of something his company does.

First day DLC is greed period

Except that it's not. Pre-order DLC speific to specific stores is called competition. And Project $10 is to combat used game sales.

no amount of spinning it into "its all subjective" will change the facts.

Except the only fact here is that an individual's taste is subjective.

Are we just ignoring the fact that some games had content in the disc and you had to pay to unlock them?
If i'm coming off as hysterical not my intention.
The way I see it DLC is a slippery slope. yes some of it works if it seems like its actually adding to the game but first day DLC? I ask where do we draw the line for the reason. Where does it stop improving on an already game and becomes just plain greed?

What you see as greed is just people trying to break even, make a profit. It's a rapidly changing industry. 

IWhy not charge us for starting the game? Why not charge us for every step our character makes?

Why would these things ever happen? Honestly? That's like saying the government will tax oxygen one day. EA, BioWare, Activision, etc., are in the business of making games that keep customers.

[Dandynermite]

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)

[KenKenpachi]

Because when you buy a copy of the game used the Developer gets nothing? Not that they get much from the original sale in anycase.

[Weiser_Cain]

KenKenpachi wrote...

Because when you buy a copy of the game used the Developer gets nothing? Not that they get much from the original sale in anycase.

What's that have to do with us?

[Fleapants]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

KenKenpachi wrote...

Because when you buy a copy of the game used the Developer gets nothing? Not that they get much from the original sale in anycase.

What's that have to do with us?

Free day 1 dlcs that people with a used copy can't access?
Next step? Pay 60 monies for a demo and upgrade it to a full game after you have used your can-only-be-used-once registration key.

[Ulous]

Stanley Woo wrote...

"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.

For the best part you are probably right, but is it really this simple? Are many peoples brains so free to make a choice to buy a luxury product? Company's spend a lot of money on advertising and for a good reason, a lot of money has also been put into finding out the effects of advertising on a persons mind and on what is most likely to make them buy certain products "Coke takes over parts of the brain that Pepsi can't reach" for example, in which many people will drink Coca Cola because it is advertised in a much more mind altering way.

Many games before release show you trailers of advanced CGI animation that do not even feature in the final game and if it does will definitely not be a playable part, many people know this but are still sucked into the illusion and start buzzing at the chance to get their hands on the game, this also is obviously something that moves through into DLC's, I think we all remember the Witch Hunt DLC trailer for DAO with it's big movie type atmosphere and it's promises of answering lots of unanswered questions..... but once I played the DLC then it revealed itself to be a decidedly average DLC that left me like (sorry to use one of my faveourite games of all time as an example btw:))

With the above in mind is it really a case of "all is right with the world" when peoples minds are constantly being subliminaly altered by advertising and clever sales techniques?

[Weiser_Cain]

...?
What I mean is what does a dispute with retailers have to do with us, the consumers?
Hell, I didn't even buy used games if I could get a new one. In fact the only thing I bought used was Baldur's Gate 2, out of a bargain bin, which surprise surprise introduced me to Bioware. While they probably didn't see a dime off of BG2, from me at least, I have bought just about every game they made since. So I can't see this as anything but short-sighted greed.

[gamer_girl]

Day one DLC just means that the devs had some extra time and wanted to make something more for hardcore fans. If people buy it, so be it, if they don't, that's their choice. It's not like the game is any less complete without the DLC. It's just an additive. If you have a problem with it you don't have to buy it. I got so irritated by the people who complained about the DA2 day one DLC. BW gave you a fricken chance to preorder it and you'd get it all for free. If you didn't pay the 5 dollars months in advance that's your fault. Anyways DLC isn't forced down people's throats. If you want the DLC that badly, fork out the money. Nothing is free. Especially something that is purely for entertainment.

[Bryy_Miller]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

...?
What I mean is what does a dispute with retailers have to do with us, the consumers?
Hell, I didn't even buy used games if I could get a new one. In fact the only thing I bought used was Baldur's Gate 2, out of a bargain bin, which surprise surprise introduced me to Bioware. While they probably didn't see a dime off of BG2, from me at least, I have bought just about every game they made since. So I can't see this as anything but short-sighted greed.

Just because we're not the retailers or the publisher does not mean that their actions do not affect us, the consumer. It's extremely naive to think that we should be unconcerned with how business is run. That just leads to the type of willful ignorance that leads to lame forum posts.

[gamer_girl]

I'm just gonna say that the only DLC people are rightfully annoyed of (me included) are retail specific ones. Unless of course they make them available later, but if they're only available that one time depending on the retailer you bought it from, that's just bloody annoying.

[Bryy_Miller]

I've never got why store-specific DLC is frowned upon. I mean, unless it's an MMO.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 28 juillet 2011 - 07:41 .

[gamer_girl]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I've never got why store-specific DLC is frowned upon. I mean, unless it's an MMO.

Because if you're a big fan and would like to have all of the multiple ones available you'd have to preorder the game multiple times and have extra lying around.

[Bryy_Miller]

gamer_girl wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I've never got why store-specific DLC is frowned upon. I mean, unless it's an MMO.

Because if you're a big fan and would like to have all of the multiple ones available you'd have to preorder the game multiple times and have extra lying around.

So it's a "completionist" thing. 

I've never got that, either.

[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.