7 réponses à ce sujet

[Mayo98577]

I'm sorry bioware, I'm not going to spend $60 for a new game and then have to pay MORE to get all the in game content.

[Gabo]

So the DLC thing has already been explained thoroughly, but I'm curious (and this is unrelated to any plans EA or Bioware might have), how many people would like a paid up-front model: Lets say there was a 30 hour game (as is common now a days) and the company promised to churn out content for an extra 30 hours of gameplay for free during the next year. Would you buy it for 60 dollars? How about if the game had 60 hours of gameplay and 30 extra hours were promised, but it was sold for 90 dollars?

[Gabo]

And here is another question. Why is it that some people demand that if content was created in time to be in the same game, then it should be given as part of the original game? So, if Mass Effect 2 had been ready at the same time as Dragon Age should Bioware be giving it away as part of buying Dragon Age? Obviously the company can't do that because it took a lot to build Mass Effect 2 and it requires its own revenue, but why would that be different from extra content in the same IP, as is DLC?



It wasn't the case for DA or any other game I know of, but people seem to think that companies are doing that and they are evil for it, but I ask again, why is it so bad for a company to plan ahead by making a large, complete game and in addition, have another team work on extra content that can be bought optionally to increase the size of the original game for those who want it?



I thought it was a good thing to be able to have options.

[Gabo]

Darpaek wrote...

How about you just make best game you can for the sake of art and then sell it at the most reasonable price? The money will come.

Before a dozen fanboyz jump me for being unrealistic, I would like to remind you of Henry Ford's model: "We will produce the highest quality product possible, at the lowest cost possible, while paying the highest wages possible."

I believe that describes DA:O to the best of my knowledge. The only thing missing there are the time constraints that affect the word "possible".

Its the optional, extra stuff that seems to bother people, and I can only assume is because they don't realize that the extra stuff is extra in every way that it can be interpreted, extra effort, extra resources, extra time and extra cost.

[Gabo]

Wickedjelly wrote...

I don't get the logic there.  They're two entirely different games.  I don't actually agree with those that claim dlc should be given away for free since they purchased the game but on the other hand your argument doesn't really make a lot of sense.

I get what you're trying to say but it's a bit loopy if you ask me.

What I'm trying to say is that saying that "Day 1 DLC should have been in the original game" is not a valid statement, because the DLC is a different project worked on by a different team and/or at a different time than the original game.

[Stanley Woo]

It does make sense, since that objection to day-one DLC ("if it's available day one, why wasn't it included in the game?") is based on a misunderstanding or willful ignorance of the way games are made. The content of the disc has to be finalized long before it appears on store shelves. This allows time for polishing, bug-fixing, localization/translation, technical certification, content rating in numerous regions, and manufacture. While all of this is going on--remember, no new content can go onto the disc during this period which can last weeks or even months--a different team can be working on DLC content, which does not require as much "lead time," since it doesn't have to go onto the disc. So with less lead time, such DLC can be ready to go at the same time as the main game.



Think of it like walking across town to meet your buddy who's driving. Because you're walking, you have to leave the house much earlier in order to get to your destination. Your buddy is driving, so he can leave the house much later and still get there on time. This DLC objection is complaining that since your buddy, who's driving, is bringing a pie to the party, so why can't you also bring a pie to the party? Well, you left the house before you were able to bake that pie and, since you're already walking, you don't have time to stop in anywhere to bake or even buy that pie. Not if you want to get there on time. Mmmm... pie.

[Gabo]

Wickedjelly wrote...

No, you don't see anyone arguing why isn't a free copy of the original Mass Effect game or another Bioware product isn't included with Dragon Age do you?  They're only doing it with things specifically designed for this game.  Are they in the right?  Of course not, for a multitude of reasons yourself and others have stated but you're not going to make any headway trying to say what they're asking is the same as throwing in Game X if it was completed at the same time.

The reason I mention Mass Effect, is because working on two different games is equivalent to working on a game and a DLC component for that game in the sense that the teams are largely independent. But, as, you said, many people don't seem to realize that and take many things for granted.

[Fernando Melo]

I've said in the past that for us 'dlc' is anything from items all the way to full expansions.  It is additional content for DA:O - the size, shape and even delivery method is somewhat irrelevant.  It's a generic term. Nothing more, nothing less.

It stands to reason that the larger the content being developed, the longer it takes to produce and the more people are needed to produce it - so a measure of patience may be appropriate, it is still early days. 

Continuing on the train of thought above, logic also dictates that the interim period between launch and larger content is more likely to produce either nothing (which is the standard, for no other reason than it is exceptionally difficult to plan and commit to having a parallel team in place early enough to make 'future' content for a game that may or may not do well), or smaller content as the larger endeavor would most likely need to consume a suitably large portion of resources.  (and no, i'm not confirming anything)

Comparing DA:O's initial DLC to other title's offerings after a year of development is a bit premature.  Not factoring in other title's poorly received initial offerings into the same equation in order to compare apples to apples, I'd suggest is also a bit of a rose colored perspective.   I'm not putting other titles down mind you, I'm a fan of (and in some cases worked on) some of those titles - I am saying that early dlc is not necessarilly indicative of the future content for a title.

For now however, know that all the DLC is produced here at BioWare using genuine 100% organic DA team members specially selected for the dedicated DLC team - no genetically modified staff, constructs or preservatives are used. 

However, that also means that producing even just 1hr of content at BioWare quality and adhering to the main game production value standards, including the same great writing and lore, the reactivity to your choices, bringing back all the voice actors for all the followers for all the lines (yes, try to replay the dlcs with different party members), cut scenes, music, creatures, combat balancing, localization for all the supported languages, testing, etc and then deliver all that for 3 platforms - is expensive, and takes time. (have a gander at the dlc credits some time)

You might comment about overall length of the DLC so far.  To be clear, I am not sure we will ever just want to produce 'bulk' filler - e.g. here's a 5hr dungeon crawl of random repeatedness, with minimal story/connection to the main game world.  Given the choice, I think we will always err on the side of make it a bit smaller if needed, but do it really well.

So for now, our preference has genuinely been to really add a lot more lore and story telling about the world and its characters, history and places - expanding its horizons as it were - and I believe all our DLCs so far (including the upcoming RtO) do this in spades, if you care for that sort of thing and enjoy taking the time to pursue it. 

For that reason, I think evaluating future DAO dlc purely on length is not going to be helpful - unless of course, that is your only measure of value/worth, in which case it may actually be that simple for you, and you may opt to pass up on this and wait it out for more substantial content.  There's nothing wrong with that.

As always, if in doubt I've also said many times for folks to hold off buying.  Listen to the reviews.  Listen to the other forumite comments.  Browse our own additional screens/videos etc that is sure to also be coming as we begin promoting new content.  Then make an informed decision on your own time - although most DLC give you more value by getting early in your playthrough as that xp/loot you carry benefits you more - you can still play DLC anytime, even after having finished the main campaign.

I've also said that we are definitely still trying out new things to see what works for our different audiences - and we do have very different audiences across the 3 platforms and play styles (many of whom are silent on here) that we still need to cater content for. 

So for what it is worth, we will be rolling out even smaller content, just as we also plan to roll out larger content too - knowing it may not work for all, and that is perfectly fine.  With each release we continue to spend a lot of time trying to find a price that we feel is appropriate and fair for the effort, and your feedback (either through your posts or purchases, or lack thereof) is very helpful in continuing to improve this.  I certainly do not take offense if no one purchases a particular dlc, that is a good way (if painful) for us to learn more about what we should be making for you.

As I've also said before, ultimately our plan is to keep listening and be willing to adjust the plan to what works for you over time... so if you really want more bulk content over substance, then I'm sure we can oblige (in time though - even that takes some time).

Modifié par Fernando Melo, 27 novembre 2009 - 05:51 .