730 réponses à ce sujet

[Kai Hohiro]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
I find your condescendence amusing. According to Mr. Woo the content doesn't make it into game because they have to ship it off for certification about 4-8 weeks before release. It was still being developed alongside the game. By your logic, we should have to pay for patches as well. I do in fact think games should cost more than $60 dollars, but 10 dollars for these little DLCs sprinkled here and there that should have been in game isn't justifiable. If it was developed during game dev time, it should be included, or for free on release date. If it was developed late in the development cycle or after release date, then fine charge for it.

To be honest the only person coming off as condescending here is you.
And you're free to have your opinion how things should be distributed. But in the end it's just that, and in no way fact or a rule.

As Stanley Woo pointed out there are risks being take here. Same with how risks were taken when ridiculous amounts of Star Wars merchandise was produced. Back then that risk paid out nicely and time will tell if it does here or not.

In the end people will vote with their dollars, not forum posts.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 09 février 2012 - 04:54 .

[DJStarstryker]

Just vote for DLC with your dollars. Buy only the bits that you want.

Bioware releases practically no DLC compared to 2 other franchises I'm a fan of (Rock Band and The Idolm@ster). I've been known to pay 1200 MSP for *an outfit* for The Idolm@ster. But even those I don't buy everything. It'd be way, way too expensive to buy it all. I just buy the pieces I want. I mean, it's optional extra content after all.

For Bioware games, I don't really have any interest in buying gun, armor, or squadmate alternate outfit DLC. But I will buy pretty much all DLC that lets me do something. I even bought the Pinnacle Station DLC for ME1, and that's probably been the least interesting pay-for mission DLC so far. But I still enjoyed it.

I think what pretty much everyone should do is get the idea of collecting DLC out of their heads. Just buy the bits that interest you. Pretend the rest doesn't exist if you have to. And if you're playing on PS3 or Xbox 360, you can even make the DLC cheaper. Sometimes 360 has sales. And for either one, you can get MSP/money for PSN wallet cards on sale for cheaper than their listed price at stores if you look. That will make DLC cheaper even if there aren't sales when you want them.

[Weevilbits]

As long as we're airing grievances and shedding light, can Stanley or whomever advise on why any given piece of content is or isn't offered "ala carte". I see all sorts of gnashing of teeth over, say, including exclusive DLC with a bunch of figurines or making stuff only available to people who purchase the CE. The bottom line, in all cases, is that just because you really like a video game and maybe want this or that downloadable add-on, that doesn't mean you want to festoon your living space with game-related knick-knacks and coffee-table books. While the standard response (that Bioware/EA is offering a deal that you as the consumer are free to take or leave) is perfectly valid, there's almost certainly money being left on the table with this setup.

Selling one more copy of any DLC at any price is pure revenue (marginal production costs being essentially zero and all), so restricting those potential sales in order to promote purchases of physical brickabrack just seems silly. I presume whoever comes up with these plans knows more than I do, but, well, that's why I'm asking.

[Clayless]

Not gonna lie, I'm will be buying everything.

[shumworld]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

shumworld wrote...

I have nothing against DLC, but what does grind my gears is having to pay for access on stuff that already is in the game disc to begin with.

Capcom's Super Street Fighter 4 is the best example I can think of that screws people over on the concept of exclusive content. The alternate costumes were in the game disc itself, but you had to pay for it in order to gain access.

I do understand this slightly more then the alternative. But Bioware has not done this. All of their DLC has been large enough to demonstrate that it's not just an unlock.

I'm certainly not accusing BioWare of doing that. I was merely venting on the discussion of games and day 1 dlc.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

I really
hope you're right and thats actually another thing that’s really bugging me, the utter lack of information. We don’t have the remotest clue what ANY of this DLC is other than a random “weapon” or “power” or if any of those DLC’s will be made available to the public later. They probably could be yeah, but still, just look at how complicated ME2’s DLC was. If it is stictly multi content, that would put my mind at ease but they should really make an official announcement on what we're actually getting in turn of spending our money on these DLC-tacked products lol. 

Honestly, when we started seeing the listings for those DLCs, I don't think Bioware even knew what they would be. I think someone from marketing set up a bunch of deals and left the dev-team to figure out how to provide some sort of DLC promo code. There are a couple of reaponses from Devs that make it seems like they didn't even know what these offers were.

As to it being multiplayer content, that seems to be a solid fact at least. From the Bioware store:

These products contain a code that can be redeemed for bonus content for
Mass Effect 3 multi-player . The pack could include character boosters,
weapons, weapon modifications and upgrades to make your multi-player
squad stronger.

This is where I'm drawing my conclusions from.

You're probably right, because of the endless stream of little EA- induced marketing tactics for this game, Bioware is doesn’t even know wth is going on. xP

It looks like its safe to say most of the content will be multi then, but I still worry though that things will go even worse with these DLC’s, that it will invade our SP experience……this whole thing has me losing sleep.(well not that bad but you know what I mean lol)

I just honestly feel that every time go look up new ME3 info I’ll find some random ME3 labeled product which I have little to no interest in, and is only available to ppl who own a specific  $300 gizmo or live in a certain country, etc, which will have some tacked on DLC. With ME2’s DLC incredibly messed up, I can only see all of ME3’s being turned into a flying-spaghetti-monster damned nightmare from hell. (x{

Modifié par NOD-INFORMER37, 09 février 2012 - 04:59 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

AlanC9 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
It's cut due to time constraints, right? Well, that means that it shouldn't have been in the game, because the game didn't have infinite development time. That's what "time constraint" means. Sure, it sucks that the game didn't have infinite development time, but that's the way the world works.

You want more development time assigned to the game? Well, someone needs to pay for that time. Hence, charging for the DLC.

I find your condescendence amusing. According to Mr. Woo the content doesn't make it into game because they have to ship it off for certification about 4-8 weeks before release. It was still being developed alongside the game. By your logic, we should have to pay for patches as well. I do in fact think games should cost more than $60 dollars, but 10 dollars for these little DLCs sprinkled here and there that should have been in game isn't justifiable. If it was developed during game dev time, it should be included, or for free on release date. If it was developed late in the development cycle or after release date, then fine charge for it.

That's "condescension." Since you find it amusing I figure I can throw a little more in.

By your logic, we've always been cheated. Before DLC the cut content was never finished at all. Now it gets finished, but you gotta pay for it.

Sure, it's nice to dream about some fantasy universe where companies finish this stuff and give it to us for free because someone high-up read a PoliteAssassin post and was shamed into doing it. I don't think that's the universe we're living in.

Quite sure the word I was looking for was condescendence, not condescension.  As for your argument, again it's weak. But hey if you want to keep inflating the corporate executives wallet, do as you please. If you honestly think DLC is the formerly cut content in previous video games, you are sadly mistaken. Cut content in video games is content that doesn't make it period, not content that gets released at a later date. But again, get ripped off if you desire to do so. 


-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 09 février 2012 - 05:00 .

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

aLucidMind wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...
That's down the line though.  And it all depends on what EA does.  I don't want to see a 66% sale on ME3 where EA still gets the lion's share (for a downloadable game, what a joke) and BioWare employees receive a pathetic amount.  

You'd prefer to see the game sold at full price with EA getting the lion's share and BioWare employees receiving a pathetic amount?

Actually, I imagine Bio employees are on salary anyway, so we should change "pathetic amount" to "nothing whatsoever." Though I wouldn't be surprised if EA's got some sort of profit-related bonus program.

If they got no share or too little share, they can't afford to pay their employees' salary; meaning they'll have to dip into game development coffers and, thus, less money to spend on making the game. EA prospers and BioWare gets stuck in a vicious cycle and risk going the way of Interplay if nothing is done about it. Worst-case scenario, of course.

ArkkAngel007 specified BioWare employees, rather than Bioware. Different issue.

Actually,  they dragged you down the wrong path.

Bioware is a fully owned subsidiary,  Bioware doesn't actually exist.  It's just a brand name now,  like Maxis,  Westwood,  Bullfrog,  and Origins before them.

Every dime goes to EA,  because EA is all there is.  Bioware doesn't pay their employees salaries,  Bioware doesn't have game development coffers,  because Bioware is just a name put on a package.  Which EA made extremely evident in 2011 when they bought several companies and rebranded them all as "Bioware".

__________________________________________________________________________________

$518 for everything that's going to be available on Day 1,  and Bioware's response is to tell us we're being cheap for having a problem with that?

I'm at a loss for words.  Seriously.

[TheJiveDJ]

Weevilbits wrote...

As long as we're airing grievances and shedding light, can Stanley or whomever advise on why any given piece of content is or isn't offered "ala carte". I see all sorts of gnashing of teeth over, say, including exclusive DLC with a bunch of figurines or making stuff only available to people who purchase the CE. The bottom line, in all cases, is that just because you really like a video game and maybe want this or that downloadable add-on, that doesn't mean you want to festoon your living space with game-related knick-knacks and coffee-table books. While the standard response (that Bioware/EA is offering a deal that you as the consumer are free to take or leave) is perfectly valid, there's almost certainly money being left on the table with this setup.

Selling one more copy of any DLC at any price is pure revenue (marginal production costs being essentially zero and all), so restricting those potential sales in order to promote purchases of physical brickabrack just seems silly. I presume whoever comes up with these plans knows more than I do, but, well, that's why I'm asking.

They probably have contracts restricing them from selling the DLC independently for a certain amount of time.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Gatt is correct. Bioware is a brand name now, like EA sports, EA play, etc... Just pointing that out.


-Polite

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Gatt9, totally agree with your signature statement.

[izmirtheastarach]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
But again, get ripped off if you desire to do so. 
-Polite

This is my favourite argument from arrogant twerps like you. If I pay for a product, and I am satisfied by it, how can I be ripped off? It sorts of defies the definition of a ripoff.

As others have said, no one is going to convince you. And you're not convincing anyone. I don't even believe you have any connection to the games industry. After all, we have only your word for that, and since your whole attitude is rude and arrogant, we really have no reason to believe you.

Good luck with your one-sided ranting.

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 09 février 2012 - 05:05 .

[Yuoaman]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
It's cut due to time constraints, right? Well, that means that it shouldn't have been in the game, because the game didn't have infinite development time. That's what "time constraint" means. Sure, it sucks that the game didn't have infinite development time, but that's the way the world works.

You want more development time assigned to the game? Well, someone needs to pay for that time. Hence, charging for the DLC.

I find your condescendence amusing. According to Mr. Woo the content doesn't make it into game because they have to ship it off for certification about 4-8 weeks before release. It was still being developed alongside the game. By your logic, we should have to pay for patches as well. I do in fact think games should cost more than $60 dollars, but 10 dollars for these little DLCs sprinkled here and there that should have been in game isn't justifiable. If it was developed during game dev time, it should be included, or for free on release date. If it was developed late in the development cycle or after release date, then fine charge for it.

That's "condescension." Since you find it amusing I figure I can throw a little more in.

By your logic, we've always been cheated. Before DLC the cut content was never finished at all. Now it gets finished, but you gotta pay for it.

Sure, it's nice to dream about some fantasy universe where companies finish this stuff and give it to us for free because someone high-up read a PoliteAssassin post and was shamed into doing it. I don't think that's the universe we're living in.

Quite sure the word I was looking for was condescendence, not condescension.  As for your argument, again it's weak. But hey if you want to keep inflating the corporate executives wallet, do as you please. If you honestly think DLC is the formerly cut content in previous video games, you are sadly mistaken. Cut content in video games is content that doesn't make it period, not content that gets released at a later date. But again, get ripped off if you desire to do so. 


-Polite

Condescendence
— n
1. Scots law  a statement of facts presented by the plaintiff in a cause
I think you mean condescension.

[AlanC9]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Quite sure the word I was looking for was condescendence, not condescension.  

Are you a Brit or something? That form's obsolete here in the US, but since it's a Canadian board I guess we should use their dictionary.

As for your argument, again it's weak. But hey if you want to keep inflating the corporate executives wallet, do as you please. If you honestly think DLC is the formerly cut content in previous video games, you are sadly mistaken. Cut content in video games is content that doesn't make it period, not content that gets released at a later date. But again, get ripped off if you desire to do so.

My argument? Dude, you were the one who said cut content. I was quoting you. If you thought Woo was lying you should have been clearer.

And if you don't have an actual counterargument, why are you posting?

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 février 2012 - 05:05 .

[Severyx]

From the sounds of things, the main people who have issues with DLC either don't understand what DLC is or how it's created OR people who feel they should be entitled to everything for free, or for absurdly minimal prices.

Oh, and armchair quarterbacks.

People need to stop targeting BioWare like they're money-grubbing misers and start understanding why things are so expensive. As a student in the Game Industry having seen how it works from the inside, I can see that it makes sense. It's a necessary evil (nobody likes to shell money out), but it makes sense.

[Yuoaman]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
But again, get ripped off if you desire to do so. 
-Polite

This is my favourite argument from arrogant twerps like you. If I pay for a product, and I am satisfied by it, how can I be ripped off? It sorts of defies the definition of a ripoff.

As others have said, no one is going to convince you. And you're not convincing anyone. I don't even believe you have any connection to the games industry. After all, we have only your word for that, and since your whole attitude is rude and arrogant, we really have no reason to believe you.

Good luck with your one-sided ranting.

Agreed, I have never felt "ripped off" after buying a Bioware product - and I doubt I'll start now just because one self-entitled jerk thinks I should be.

[LiZaRdChaSE]

Stanley Woo wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

My problem is that EVERYTHING has exclusive DLC now.  It's moved beyond a cool bonus that makes the game more fun--now it's obnoxious and gimmicky.  I also have a problem with day one DLC because, seriously, that stuff should go in the god damn game.  There is no point in NOT including it in the vanilla edition other than to nickel and dime your consumer base.

"Bonus" content left and right before the damn game's even out?  Pathetic.

And that's my opinion on that.

You know what they call bonus content that's already in the main game? "The main game." To be a "bonus" it has be demonstrably separate from the main game. It has to be an add-on to something that is already a whole thing.

If it's "in the god damn game," it's just content, and to call it a bonus then would just anger more people because the bonus is already in the game! I don't think you can complain about "bonus DLC should be in the game" in one breath and suggest "make the bonus more invisible but still call it a bonus" in the next. Because at that point, you're just wanting to get more content for free.

Whenever these topics come up, I try to explain how DLC is made, by whom, and why it can't appear on the game disc. But some people are quite happy to dig in their heels and keep spouting their incorrect and misguided statements against DLC. I'm okay with folks disagreeing with DLC or disliking it, even hating it as a concept, but please be honest about it and get your facts straight, at the very least.

And Gatt9, that goes for you too.

^ This 

[Yuoaman]

AlanC9 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
Quite sure the word I was looking for was condescendence, not condescension.  

Are you a Brit or something? That form's obsolete here in the US, but since it's a Canadian board I guess we should use their dictionary.

As for your argument, again it's weak. But hey if you want to keep inflating the corporate executives wallet, do as you please. If you honestly think DLC is the formerly cut content in previous video games, you are sadly mistaken. Cut content in video games is content that doesn't make it period, not content that gets released at a later date. But again, get ripped off if you desire to do so.

My argument? Dude, you were the one who said cut content. I was quoting you. If you thought Woo was lying you should have been clearer.

And if you don't have an actual counterargument, why are you posting?

Condescendence isn't used over here in Canada either.

[Weevilbits]

TheJiveDJ wrote...

Weevilbits wrote...

As long as we're airing grievances and shedding light, can Stanley or whomever advise on why any given piece of content is or isn't offered "ala carte". I see all sorts of gnashing of teeth over, say, including exclusive DLC with a bunch of figurines or making stuff only available to people who purchase the CE. The bottom line, in all cases, is that just because you really like a video game and maybe want this or that downloadable add-on, that doesn't mean you want to festoon your living space with game-related knick-knacks and coffee-table books. While the standard response (that Bioware/EA is offering a deal that you as the consumer are free to take or leave) is perfectly valid, there's almost certainly money being left on the table with this setup.

Selling one more copy of any DLC at any price is pure revenue (marginal production costs being essentially zero and all), so restricting those potential sales in order to promote purchases of physical brickabrack just seems silly. I presume whoever comes up with these plans knows more than I do, but, well, that's why I'm asking.

They probably have contracts restricing them from selling the DLC independently for a certain amount of time.

That's a distinct possibility, but doesn't really help because it invites the question of why those contracts were drawn up and signed in the first place.  I'm generally irritated by vendor-exclusive DLC but I get how it makes sense to bribe Gamestop with this kind of nonsense in order to encourage them to promote your product.  But I doubt  that whatever company produced those replica assault-rifles was in any position to demand that EA/Bioware toss in exclusive digital sweeteners to goose sales.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Yuoaman wrote...
Condescendence
— n
[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)">1. Scots law  ]a[/color] statement of facts presented by the plaintiff in a cause
I think you mean condescension.

1. (Law) Scots Law a statement of facts presented by the plaintiff in a cause
2. a less common word for condescension

http://www.thefreedi.../condescendence

hmm.. Selective vision eh? Try harder troll. 

-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 09 février 2012 - 05:09 .

[jcolt]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Hey BioWare...please continue with the good DLCs with story content, etc. And for those who are upset by the other stuff...don't buy it?

agreed like i've bought every story content dlc but i will not buy the action figures for the dlc just because theres no way i'm gonna buy an action figure i don't care how much story content it has, but i'm not gonna gripe about it because its my choice.

[izmirtheastarach]

jcolt wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Hey BioWare...please continue with the good DLCs with story content, etc. And for those who are upset by the other stuff...don't buy it?

agreed like i've bought every story content dlc but i will not buy the action figures for the dlc just because theres no way i'm gonna buy an action figure i don't care how much story content it has, but i'm not gonna gripe about it because its my choice.

Once again, it has no story content. Is has worthless multiplayer content. There is no benefit to buying the figures unless you want to figures.

[Yuoaman]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Yuoaman wrote...
Condescendence
— n
[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)">1. Scots law  ]a[/color] statement of facts presented by the plaintiff in a cause
I think you mean condescension.

1. (Law) Scots Law a statement of facts presented by the plaintiff in a cause
2. a less common word for condescension

http://www.thefreedi.../condescendence

hmm.. Selective vision eh? Try harder troll. 

-Polite

I didn't use that page.

And I fail to see how I am in any way a troll - you're the one who refuses to accept that anyone else is right. You're either delusional or a just a dick.

[Lightweight Nate]

I have to agree to a certain extent. The number of little bonus missions and items is a wee bit ridiculous for ME3. I, for one, would enjoy having a complete game. The very least you could do is bundle all of the stuff together like the N7 Arsenal pack that was only available on PSN.