291 réponses à ce sujet

[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.

[JaegerBane]

Gabochido wrote...

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?

No, as I generally make an individual decision on whether to purchase DLCs or not, one by one. I bought Warden's Keep and thoroughly enjoyed it - but I enjoyed it because I liked it, not because I'm a grand supporter of DLCs or whatever. As far as I'm concerned these things are mini-expansions, and I treat them as such. Like the games themselves, I'll only purchase one if I think it's worth the moola.

Personally I think DA:O's DLC model is quite slick - making this kind of stuff easy to buy is ultimately going to result in more sales.

[Wickedjelly]

Gabochido wrote...

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?

I get where you're going with this and I suppose since I don't have an issue with the dlc concept in general this doesn't actually apply to me per se but to answer your question...

Hell freaking no

I will say while I'm not a hater of dlc I would hope future content is done a bit better than Warden's Keep.  It wasn't terrible but it did have some flaws to it least in my opinion.  I don't mind dlc but I do still consider quality and quantity when it comes to dlc.

[Wickedjelly]

Gabochido wrote...

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?

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.

[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.

[Chlamydion]

Gabochido, that's not an unreasonable question. I do look at the predicted hours of game play when I buy a game, and 30 hours is way too short for my Puritan heritage (well, my cheapskate heritage) to let me pay $50-60 for a game offering that sort of return. Call me unrealistic, call me old-fashioned, call me anything you like, but I find that sort of abbreviated game unappealing. I'll wait until the price drops (and, by the way, patches and fan-created content, if any, are available) and feel much better about it.

But I suppose that if I buy into the notion that typical games are about 30 hours, and that I would pay $50-60 for a newly released game of that length, then it would be reasonable to expect to pay about $20-$30 for an expansion that added another 10-15 hours and additional content. If the game has a good toolset, an expansion is also a good value for the material it gives modders/builders.

If the content actually doubled the game play time, but wasn't a new game (think Baldur's Gate 2, which was a new game, even though it used a lot of material from BG1), then I'd still expect to spend somewhat less than the cost of an original game because of savings to the developer/publisher resulting from:

1. Using an engine has the bugs identified/worked out easier and quicker to tinker with an existing system than to try to build a new one because it's.easier and quicker to tinker with an existing system than to try to build a new one.

2. Having game balance already in place. Even if the new content introduces new things, they can be worked into the existing balance which reduces development time. Again, it's easier and quicker to tinker with an existing system than to try to build a new one.

3. Being able to reuse many graphics objects.

As far as the things like adding characters, or items, or areas, well...  Again, I'm cheap frugal. But if any of those items or areas or characters are worth the price to me, then I'll get them. I only object if DLC becomes essential to play the game.

And there is no way I would pay $90 for a game, period, even if there is a promise of extra material. That's the reason I don't play any subscription MMOs -- I just can't justify the money.

This was aimed at Gabochido's first post. Sorry if that isn't clear, folks.

Modifié par Chlamydion, 26 novembre 2009 - 06:23 .

[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.

[Chlamydion]

If you're saying that DLC was already in the works, then that makes sense. They just got their stuff together quicker than the game team. It happens.

[Wickedjelly]

Gabochido wrote...

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.

Yeah I know that's what you were going for I just think the comparison you used was rather bad because it's easy to poke holes in.

Of course, on a bright note least you didn't use a food analogy like most seem to want to do for the billionth time when trying to make a comparison so I suppose I shouldn't be so critical

[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.

[Mork_ba]

With MMOs out where people buy a game for 40 euros, then pay 13 euro/month subscription and then another 40 euro per expansion... Competition forces other companies that make single player games which you buy once and are done with subscriptions and stuff to apply this DLC policy. Apparently you can't survive if you don't take part in the hunt. That's how things are...



I don't support this thing of course, but I believe it's pretty understandable for a gaming company to make these DLC... If you believe that any company makes games purely for the fun of it you're naive and mislead. It's buisness and they have to do it well in order to survive. Bioware's made some of the best games ever, so I guess if there's any company I would support by buying their games it would be this one(And to be honest DA:O was the only game I bought in the past infinity engine games, Morrowind and WoW)... And seeing about Torchlight if I got funds at christmas I'll snatch that one too for it was another game made by devs who seem to like what they do...



That's how things are, no?

[Wickedjelly]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

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.


Of course, truth be told I doubt no matter what you guys say they will change their mind.  I appreciate the honesty and I'm not trying to pick a fight.  I just don't think it's a good comparison to use.  Of course, I've never been a huge fan of using analogies anyways.  So it could be more about that than anything else.

As for the reason they do it I think it's more misunderstanding than anything.  We don't work in the industry so of course a lot of them aren't going to know what is all entailed and you're always going to have a level of distrust amongst some between a company and the customer. Plus, not everyone has the money to be able to buy items on a continual basis so I would think some feel they're going to lose out because they won't be able to afford the items.  I'm not saying I agree with them but I can sympathize.

[VanDraegon]

double post. See below...

Modifié par VanDraegon, 26 novembre 2009 - 07:01 .

[Wickedjelly]

Mork_ba wrote...

With MMOs out where people buy a game for 40 euros, then pay 13 euro/month subscription and then another 40 euro per expansion... Competition forces other companies that make single player games which you buy once and are done with subscriptions and stuff to apply this DLC policy. Apparently you can't survive if you don't take part in the hunt. That's how things are...

Personally, I think that's part of the problem is some are relating how things work in an mmo to how it should be in a single player game.  A lot of mmos add small bits of content before the addition of an expansion.  Granted you pay a monthly fee which is why you have some companies do those types of things but I've seen people while even playing those games refer to those updates as being free content even though they're paying amonthly fee which in essence is part of the reason you received the additional content.

I could be wrong but I think some are expecting the same thing in relation to single player games when small portions of content are added.  The problem is Bioware isn't charging a monthly fee so they have to make money somewhere.  Plus, there have been a few games, I stress few, that have added additional content for free.  I think the one most think of is The Witcher when they bring this up.  You can see where that got that company far as being able to continue though.  It was a nice gesture and you certainly didn't see me balk about it but didn't help them stay afloat that's for sure.

[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.

[VanDraegon]

VanDraegon wrote...

Gabochido wrote...

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?

Sure, i would pay for that, either one. I would love it if DA was in that model, but i knew going into getting DA that it would be a quality experience. Then again i am older and like to spoil myself in regards to my hobbies and have the disposible income to do so. I have no problems paying a premium price for quality.

Gabochido wrote...

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.

I dont see how it is anything other than selfishness on the part of gamers who think they deserve every last bit of content available for the game they purchased at the original price.  I am astounded actually that there is such a fuss over DLC when the option is either nothing or perhaps an expansion in a year or so.

Modifié par VanDraegon, 26 novembre 2009 - 07:03 .

[dmcguk]

If you don`t want to buy DLC then don`t . Bragging about it on a forum has no effect.



And I willy gladly buy anymore DLC for DA

[Wickedjelly]

VanDraegon wrote...

I dont see how it is anything other than selfishness on the part of gamers who think they deserve every last bit of content available for the game they purchased at the original price.  I am astounded actually that there is such a fuss over DLC when the option is either nothing or perhaps an expansion in a year or so.

Yeah, I don't totally understand it myself.  I suppose it's partly a fear that there won't be any type of expansion or sequel maybe?  Or like I've said before a feeling of ownership due to how other genres handle additional content or simply not having the money?

Only reasons I can think of for getting worked up about it.

[ladydesire]

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.

Because the storyline was done late last year or early this year in anticipation of a spring release of the PC version of the game; Stone Prisoner content was actually cut from the game, and put together as a gift to those that buy the game, since most of the work was already done. The other packs were done after the original code lock; Warden's Keep was ready for day 1 release on all platforms.

[Darpaek]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

As far as I am aware, the PC version of DA:O was good-to-go last February.  Please pardon my willful ignorance if I am incorrect.

You guys have a long track record.  I wasn't the biggest fan of JE or ME, but I trust you guys.  You have earned a reputation worthy of trust.

Do you give us your word that all work involving Shale, Soldier's Peak, and Ostagar - including concept and design - occured after February 2009?

[Eurypterid]

Darpaek wrote...


As far as I am aware, the PC version of DA:O was good-to-go last February.  Please pardon my willful ignorance if I am incorrect.

You guys have a long track record.  I wasn't the biggest fan of JE or ME, but I trust you guys.  You have earned a reputation worthy of trust.

Do you give us your word that all work involving Shale, Soldier's Peak, and Ostagar - including concept and design - occured after February 2009?

I doubt I can find the thread (there are so many with dev responses to questions on DLC), but they've already stated that. The Shale content was originally intended to be in the game, but as it came close to the original release date, it was abandoned as unfeasible to be ready for release. But the delayed release date allowed them to work on it after the content lockdown and they just barelymanaged to have it ready as it was. (And since it was intended to be in the game, this is the reason it's proveded free to new game owners.)

Soldier's Peak and Ostagar were made after the originally planned release date by a separate DLC team. That was stated unequivocally in another thread.

[akridine]

I don't know why bioware are entertaining the whiners with a response, the choice not to buy the DLC is there, you buy whats on the disk, anything extra is optional and noone is forced into buying it.



games like Call of duty can get away with 6 hours of content for the same price as Dragon age.



Would people prefer no DLC at all and just let the game rot while waiting for an expansion or sequel?

[Sylixe]

You paid $60 for the game on the day of release?  What Mafia store did you buy it from?  I know i didn't pay that much on the day of release.

[Darpaek]

Eurypterid wrote...

Darpaek wrote...


As far as I am aware, the PC version of DA:O was good-to-go last February.  Please pardon my willful ignorance if I am incorrect.

You guys have a long track record.  I wasn't the biggest fan of JE or ME, but I trust you guys.  You have earned a reputation worthy of trust.

Do you give us your word that all work involving Shale, Soldier's Peak, and Ostagar - including concept and design - occured after February 2009?

I doubt I can find the thread (there are so many with dev responses to questions on DLC), but they've already stated that. The Shale content was originally intended to be in the game, but as it came close to the original release date, it was abandoned as unfeasible to be ready for release. But the delayed release date allowed them to work on it after the content lockdown and they just barelymanaged to have it ready as it was. (And since it was intended to be in the game, this is the reason it's proveded free to new game owners.)

Soldier's Peak and Ostagar were made after the originally planned release date by a separate DLC team. That was stated unequivocally in another thread.

All of the voice talent was brought back into the studio after February 2009 to record new dialogue for Soldier's Peak and Ostagar?