291 réponses à ce sujet

[Brimleydower]

I'm all for DLC. I don't think the amount of content being offered accurately reflects the cost, though. Also, my party needs their own keep. It's cold outside up in them mountains.

[Vol_tron]

Georg Zoeller wrote...

rest assured that that kind of approach would be ineffective

A) Because the only way to vote against DLC is not to buy it. But while enough people are buying it (aka consumer demand exists), even that doesn't really work. As long as reasonable demand for a product exists, we would be irresponsible to just ignore it.

BioWare people can see the who is making posts from the same address, so going through the effort of making additional accounts isn't really all that effective. I mean, sure, one could go through a dozen proxies to obfuscate that, but given the general low impact generic 'I hate this' posts on forums have, it'd be costing someone a lot of time and just cause us amusements in our team meetings ("hey, that italian guy who created 27 accounts? Kids these days have too much time on their hands")

As for patches vs. DLC. The core DA team is working on patches. They are free. They take time, because they have to run through QA. There is a different team, the DLC team, that works on downloadable content. These resources don't conflict with each other (and besides, on thing that never speeds up software development is throwing more people at a problem), because the patch team is mostly engineers while the DLC team is mostly content creators - and if you look at the credits, you get a rough idea how many people BioWare has available to dedicate to either of this.

What the patch team is doing is called 'live support' and it has always been free and will always be free (unless the industry moves to a universal subscription model, not terribly likely).

What the DLC team is doing is creating new content, and as such, we expect to be paid for it, because a team of several dozen people is pretty damn expensive over time.

Great post. I like hearing from Bioware. 

[Druscylla]

Yes but comparing a single player RPG to an MMORPG is totally moot. Single player is in a totally different class as an MMO. Also it is very dependent on time played by each individual, expansion packs owned, and all this needs to be calculated by the time the game has been out of course, and the time an individual has actually been playing since the game's launch. Since DA:O is neither and MMO nor has been out as long, it is unfair to categorize it with a game that hasn't got much in common other than being an RPG type. Alistair sure doesn't care if I go offline for a few weeks and am not inviting him to raid.

[Brimleydower]

abr4 wrote...

Vinditater wrote...

Gonna take a huge guess here but I'm fairly sure I'm spot on:

To the OP, how much did you pay for WoW and its awful expansions? Thought so. Go away.

If you played WoW for about 2 hours a day for 3 years and got both the basic game as well as Burning Crusade you paid about 550€ if you subscribed on a monthly basis for 13€.

Now over the course of 3 years with a bit over two hours per day played you'll have played about 100 days or 2400 hours. Which means you'll have payed about 20 cents per hour of playtime.

If you play Dragon Age for less than 250 hours you will have gotten more money's worth paying 550€ for WoW than paying 50€ for Dragon Age. For some people the ratio favours WoW even more since there are people playing it thrice as much per day.

tldr: Go away.

Honestly, the costs involved don't matter.  WoW is an MMO, DA:O is not.  Apples and oranges.

[Inarai]

abr4 wrote...

Vinditater wrote...

Gonna take a huge guess here but I'm fairly sure I'm spot on:

To the OP, how much did you pay for WoW and its awful expansions? Thought so. Go away.

If you played WoW for about 2 hours a day for 3 years and got both the basic game as well as Burning Crusade you paid about 550€ if you subscribed on a monthly basis for 13€.

Now over the course of 3 years with a bit over two hours per day played you'll have played about 100 days or 2400 hours. Which means you'll have payed about 20 cents per hour of playtime.

If you play Dragon Age for less than 250 hours you will have gotten more money's worth paying 550€ for WoW than paying 50€ for Dragon Age. For some people the ratio favours WoW even more since there are people playing it thrice as much per day.

tldr: Go away.

I would be shocked as all hell to find out that's a legitimate center of the spread.

There's no way most normal players(IE, excluding gold farmers and bots and the like) play that often, pure and simple.  People have lives, after all, and to say that the average individual can devot 2 hours a day, 365 days a year to that single game is ludicrous, pure and simple.

[abr4]

Inarai wrote...

I would be shocked as all hell to find out that's a legitimate center of the spread.

There's no way most normal players(IE, excluding gold farmers and bots and the like) play that often, pure and simple.  People have lives, after all, and to say that the average individual can devot 2 hours a day, 365 days a year to that single game is ludicrous, pure and simple.

Well, the average mmo player can. Apparently the average playtime per day is 3 hours even.

http://www.nickyee.c...ives/000891.php

Modifié par abr4, 23 novembre 2009 - 09:46 .

[TcheQ]

Game cost me less than a dollar an hour to play so far. I didn't get premium content buying off Steam, and I don't care. It's 100% fun

[Inarai]

abr4 wrote...

Inarai wrote...

I would be shocked as all hell to find out that's a legitimate center of the spread.

There's no way most normal players(IE, excluding gold farmers and bots and the like) play that often, pure and simple.  People have lives, after all, and to say that the average individual can devot 2 hours a day, 365 days a year to that single game is ludicrous, pure and simple.

Well, the average mmo player can. Apparently the average playtime per day is 3 hours even.

http://www.nickyee.c...ives/000891.php

Wow, they don't offer a lot of information...

How'd they get their subjects(I have a few thouhgts, not of them good for it's reliability)?  Did they monitor use, or simply ask?  Did they exclude some games or players from their operational definitions?  Is this article peer-reviewed?

You can't actually take studies on face value like that, you HAVE to go deeper.  But it's too easy for that to be screwed up, from it's sampling alone, to consider it in any way reliable.

Modifié par Inarai, 23 novembre 2009 - 10:17 .

[Raxtoren]

ANy developer who charge money for DLC on day 1 are greedy.
End of story.

Didnt see that with Halo3,Assassin Creed,Uncharted,Killzone,Fallout,Oblivion,Vesperia the list goes on.
Only Dragon Age so far has has DLC on day 1.
And still they find no problem with it, "oh we have a dlc team making that content" can't that be said about anything?
Star Ocean 4 came with 3 bonus dungeons and tons of items and mobs, could easily cut that content out and lied about DLC-team and then charge for it, but some people have manners.

Modifié par Raxtoren, 23 novembre 2009 - 10:19 .

[Inarai]

Raxtoren wrote...

ANy developer who charge money for DLC on day 1 are greedy.
End of story.

The absolute nature of your statement renders it assumed-false.  Got an actual argument?

[Raxtoren]

Inarai wrote...

Raxtoren wrote...

ANy developer who charge money for DLC on day 1 are greedy.
End of story.

The absolute nature of your statement renders it assumed-false.  Got an actual argument?

Wait, you think Wardens keep wasnt done before the game went gold?
jeeeez, hahaha - right...
keep drinking the Kool-aid. And btw, the DLC didnt even work on the console on day 1. But Greedy Bioware didnt test it out, nope money on day 1 for content that doesnt work thats how Bioware handle their buisness.
Its the most greedy company in the industry, I like their games but greedy.

Oh. and mass effect 2 will come out in 1,5 month expect greedy DLC for it as in ME1 with re-used enviorments/objects, what was the last content? a simulator which let you fight mobs in places you been at, ahhh im glad that the DLC team really work hard, must take a lot of hard thinking for that content.

[Chriagon]

I basically like the idea of DLC. And I especially like the way I can buy it with "Dragon Age", easily via paypal from within the game.

However, I'm not interested in buying "1 hour DLC" like I don't buy games with a playing time of less than let's say 25 hours at the very least. I love epic games like BG2, which is still the best game ever for me.

For "Warden's Keep" I made an exception, because I just started DA and was hoping for something like the castle in BG2 or NWN2. Needless to say I was quite disappointed.

Anyway, my wish for DLC would be something like "Throne of Baal", "Hordes of the Underdark" or "Mask of the Betrayer" for around 25-30 Euro.

Preferable every 1-2 months...

Modifié par chrissicross, 23 novembre 2009 - 10:33 .

[abr4]

Inarai wrote...

Wow, they don't offer a lot of information...

How'd they get their subjects(I have a few thouhgts, not of them good for it's reliability)?  Did they monitor use, or simply ask?  Did they exclude some games or players from their operational definitions?  Is this article peer-reviewed?

You can't actually take studies on face value like that, you HAVE to go deeper.  But it's too easy for that to be screwed up, from it's sampling alone, to consider it in any way reliable.

Read through the page, your issues are addressed, I'm sure you'll find it. I found it to be pretty transparent actually and if you have a better source you are very welcome to provide it.

Just nagging isn't productive.

Modifié par abr4, 23 novembre 2009 - 10:32 .

[Raxtoren]

you will never get DLC like that from greedy developers.

If they charge 25-30 euro it makes the consumer think hard if its worth it or not, its much more profitable to charge for micro transactions like 5-6 per content 5-6 times,then for ex 30 euro at one point.

[Selvec_Darkon]

As long as the content is worth the price I'm paying I have no issue with paying for said DLC. I'm holding to the fact though that most all bioware games have a massive modding and design community, providing thousands of dollars of free quality content.

[Inarai]

Raxtoren wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Raxtoren wrote...

ANy developer who charge money for DLC on day 1 are greedy.
End of story.

The absolute nature of your statement renders it assumed-false.  Got an actual argument?

Wait, you think Wardens keep wasnt done before the game went gold?
jeeeez, hahaha - right...
keep drinking the Kool-aid. And btw, the DLC didnt even work on the console on day 1. But Greedy Bioware didnt test it out, nope money on day 1 for content that doesnt work thats how Bioware handle their buisness.
Its the most greedy company in the industry, I like their games but greedy.

Oh. and mass effect 2 will come out in 1,5 month expect greedy DLC for it as in ME1 with re-used enviorments/objects, what was the last content? a simulator which let you fight mobs in places you been at, ahhh im glad that the DLC team really work hard, must take a lot of hard thinking for that content.

That's not an argument...  Nor relevant.  Then you go on to assume too much.  The content must have been working on their test systems, or it would have been delayed - the fact that this did not occur to you tells me three things:
- You know nothing of game development.
- You know nothing of software development at all.
- You know nothing of QA at all (In software, nothing releases perfect.  Some things will always come up when you go live that didn't show in testing.)

Also, greedy?  Really?  Evidence doesn't bear it out, and again you have to rely on an invalid assumption.

I'm merely asking you to actually be able to support your position, which so far you seem utterly incapable of.

[Inarai]

abr4 wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Wow, they don't offer a lot of information...

How'd they get their subjects(I have a few thouhgts, not of them good for it's reliability)?  Did they monitor use, or simply ask?  Did they exclude some games or players from their operational definitions?  Is this article peer-reviewed?

You can't actually take studies on face value like that, you HAVE to go deeper.  But it's too easy for that to be screwed up, from it's sampling alone, to consider it in any way reliable.

Read through the page, your issues are addressed, I'm sure you'll find it. I found it to be pretty transparent actually and if you have a better source you are very welcome to provide it.

Just nagging isn't productive.

I see no such answers there.  And it's not nagging - it's examining your information, how its obtained, how valid it is.  This is a vital step to understanding anything.

And really, I haven't got the time to go and properly judge a source jsut to solve an internet argument that doesn't really have any consequence - I have enough to do as is.

Modifié par Inarai, 23 novembre 2009 - 10:47 .

[SweXShadow]

i have to say the game was awe full short less then 30 hours of game play. have to say that id like atlest 70 hours from a game thats been developed for 5 years. and even NW2 could put out 70 hours first time i played it.

[Jim_uk]

I don't have a problem with DLC if it offers value for money, sadly if Wardens Keep is anything to go by they have a way to go yet. I'm going to wait and see, I saw what happened with Bethesda and how their stuff improved over time from the Horse Armour to some of the great stuff for Fallout3. I really hope Bioware take that route rather than follow EAs model with The Sims 3, charging money for dross.

[Durallan]

BioReaperEA wrote...

I think what people are asking is; this "extra" content came out the same time as the game not months or years later, so why wasn't included in the game? And if I don't want to buy the dlc that's fine, then don't put empty acheivement slots in for the dlc I never bought and then advertise to me in camp with a new quest.

I paid $75 for my edition and as for a tip, how about fixing all the damn bugs in the game first and then work on dlc stuff.

75 bucks? Boo Hoo, Mine Cost $130.  I have been fortunate in having hardly any bugs at all in dragon age, but however suffering many and varied bugs from empire total war, well, hopefully you can start playing without bugs soon. Bioware seem to be good at patches, at least theres a rediculous amount to download whenever I reinstall NWN 2

However having spent 130 australian dollars on the collectors edition of this game Bioware, it has left me unable to buy wardens keep, so you just gonna have to wait awhile longer for me to get that. Make some good expansions please! worth 40 bucks, I'd buy those.

Edit: Swex I have no idea how you've played the game but I have 120 hours + in 2 playthroughs of the game, how do you manage 30 hours in one?? thats impossible.

oh and by the way, NO WAY should anyone increase computer game prices in america, we already pay twice that in australia, the computer game market in australia would crash completely if that were to happen because NO ONE is going to pay 240 dollars for a COMPUTER GAME.

Modifié par Durallan, 23 novembre 2009 - 12:44 .

[dannythefool]

Jim_uk wrote...

I don't have a problem with DLC if it offers value for money, sadly if Wardens Keep is anything to go by they have a way to go yet. I'm going to wait and see, I saw what happened with Bethesda and how their stuff improved over time from the Horse Armour to some of the great stuff for Fallout3. I really hope Bioware take that route rather than follow EAs model with The Sims 3, charging money for dross.

That's my concern as well. I actually want the industry to move in this direction. If I enjoy a game then I want to pay $5 a month later and enjoy it again with more content. But now that I've seen Warden's Keep and read that the estimated game time we're supposed to get out of Return to Ostagar is around one hour, I'm disappointed. I do give Bioware credit for the immense amount of play time I got from the original DAO so far, but as the saying goes... fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...

[Durallan]

dannythefool wrote...


That's my concern as well. I actually want the industry to move in this direction. If I enjoy a game then I want to pay $5 a month later and enjoy it again with more content. But now that I've seen Warden's Keep and read that the estimated game time we're supposed to get out of Return to Ostagar is around one hour, I'm disappointed. I do give Bioware credit for the immense amount of play time I got from the original DAO so far, but as the saying goes... fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...

The only problem so far seems to be that it looks like its alot more effort for Bioware to make new and original content, whereas bethesdas engine which I've played with a bit allows alot more freedom in creating larger adventures because the dungeons are basically made from lego blocks, which makes it very easy to create large dungeons, I've not played witht he bioware toolset myself so don't know, but from what I watched on the documentary some of the areas in the game took them months to make, so I suppose it depends really, I think the easiest thing for them to make right now would be more thaigs in the deep roads, and that I would enjoy because I liked exploring the thaigs in the deep roads, however, they do need to bump up the time from 1 hour to 2 or 3 hours for 10 bucks, anyway thats about all I can think of right now

[pulcherrima]

Georg Zoeller wrote...
.................................
Truth is that games today are much much more expensive to create than 8 years ago. Think dozens of millions of dollars, teams of 100s of people (I think Assassins Creed 2 was somewhere around 400 people peak), it costs a lot of money.

At the same time, the price for games has been remarkably constant. Let's for the sake of the argument, assume piracy has stayed constant too (it hasn't) - so, how can the industry afford to still create games?
........................

You could have a point IF the price per content for DLCs were higher than the original game about , lets say, 20%, or even 50%.
As the perceived price/content for the DLCs is around freaking TEN TIMES that of the original game, well, somehow I dont believe that kind of profit goes to pay the developers.

By all means, make DLCs and sell them, just tag them with a REASONABLE PRICE, not some overblown figure calculated by marketing to get the most short-term profit out of fanbois.

[Beerny]

Mayo98577 wrote...

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.

I heard it's called "milking the cow"...and I LOVE milk!

[micheal001]

Georg Zoeller wrote...

rest assured that that kind of approach would be ineffective

A) Because the only way to vote against DLC is not to buy it. But while enough people are buying it (aka consumer demand exists), even that doesn't really work. As long as reasonable demand for a product exists, we would be irresponsible to just ignore it.

Oh come on with it already. Its deceitful practice that Bioware makes by initializing DLC and forcing players too buy the extra content if they wish too finish a quest.  Ok course demand would be high from consumers because they have no other choice but too buy the content.
 
To take away a slice of the whole pie and make the slice extra content is decitful when chances are Bioware had a discussion over the issue and figured they could make more money then if the jacked up the box price by a few bucks.

Wouldn't be surprising as hell if Bioware does this kind of practice in there up coming mmo SWTOR mmo

Modifié par micheal001, 23 novembre 2009 - 02:49 .