730 réponses à ce sujet

[MadLaughter]

Here's the thing Stanley doesn't seem to notice and EA definitely doesn't. Building a strong relationship with customers who are fans is an indirect way to improve sales of their game. I'll give a topical recent example:

Double Fine Studios, with people like Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert, just crowdsourced funding for their next game. They wanted to get $300,000 in 33 days. Guess what...they got over 500,000 dollars in less than TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. You know why? Because that company has a very positive relationship with its' customers. On the Kickstarter page, they promised to be the most transparent developers of all time on this project. And it worked.

What if EA tried to do this? It would blow up in their faces. People don't trust them, and they do not have figureheads like Schafer or Ron Gilbert that are more interested in the creative vision of their games than pure money. EA/Bioware are ridiculously secretive with their development and confusing with their DLC/Bonus Content, it creates a barrier to entry that they don't seem to realize. I respect being secretive about Story for ME3, but they adhere to such a strict marketing schedule and even then sometimes fail to follow through that it's a huge bummer.

People performed a miracle for Double Fine studios because they like them, and they trust them. Their employees are generally cheery and respectful to their fans.

Here, people like Priestly comment in threads titled "Who are your least favorite ME characters?" and Priestly responded with something like "Can I say the fans?"

You know why the user score on Metacritic gets bombed for Dragon Age 2, Bioware? It's because people perceived EA as evil, Bioware employees that were snarky instead of helpful, and the fact that they had the most ridiculous bonus/dlc scheme to date.

Be transparent, be KIND TO YOUR USERS, and the world will respond in kind.

[whitey4444]

Value for money is my biggest gripe, alongside deliberately held back content (Mafia II...).

While I think LotSB was good, it wasn't worth 17% of the value of the entire original game. For ME2, knock the $10 DLC down to $7, and the $7 DLC down to $4-5 (and pay people to play Arrival) and you've got a fairer approximation of what they are worth.

The only DLC I think was relevant, value for money and not holding content back from the original game was GTA4 (which was more of a limited expansion really) and the swamp in Fallout. although I've heard Borderlands did it well (haven't played it). But as I like playing a complete game as well including DLC, I'm finding myself waiting for complete editions to be released 12-24 months after the game rather than buy it on release. Fallout NV is a perfect example.

[Severyx]

casadechrisso wrote...

I wish they went back to making either expansions or DLCs that clearly feel like expansions, contrary to giving the player the feeling they have to pay double to make just the base game complete.

See, this is why the DLC issue is even an issue at all. Players have this idea that DLC was content that was cut from the base game. While I'm not entirely familair with the story with the Stone Prisoner deal, this is usually not the case.

As Mr. Woo has pointed out earlier in the thread, DLC is something that is worked on AFTER the base game's content has been decided upon and locked in. This isn't 'Oh man, we've gotta cut this to make our timeline, take it from the base game and make it DLC!'. This is 'Alright, we have some devs whose roles have more or less been used up before the end of the cycle, let's get them working on some extra content that we think the fans will enjoy.'.

If you think you need all of the DLC bits to have a full game experience, that's your problem, not BioWare or EA's.

[brfritos]

mranderson25 wrote...

DLC is also there to help combat the losses a developer takes with piracy and used game sales. I'm not saying I'm against the used game market, but developers see ZERO money from used games. Only one person buys it new, then they trade it in and it goes back on the shelf for others to buy. You can see how his would add up. DLC let's the developer make money even on used copies of a game, so at least it's not a total loss. Does that mean they should have skimpy, half-assed DLC? No. But I think Bioware is one of the few developers to actually do DLC right.

I'm just curious of one thing regarding this issue: why game developers are entitled to gain something from second hand products?
Do GM, Ford or VW gain something from second hand vehicles? Or Apple from second hand computers?
Even MS allows you to sell your copy of Windows to another person without any trouble, provided you supply the serial number too.
This type of logic really bafles me, really!

This has a name, is called greed.

nacholibre83 wrote...

Does anyone here really think that these things weren't stripped from the original game? They were offered before the game came out. Because of this little marketing stunt, the game suffered from the lack of customisation. And did it really hurth them that much to put all those things back in the game after a while? CD Project Red did exact same thing regarding the Witcher 2 (not to mentio all the free DLCs). Why not 'reward' your fans for spending their hard earned cash for your game? Nooo, BW had to charge us extra for the things that should've been in the game, that we spent full price on..

Also, there's this issue regarding DLC, is something that expands the story or a character or is simply something cutted from the game for gainning a quick buck later?
The so called "free DLC" of Zaeed smells exactly like a cutted content only for fooling people they have something new on their hands!

Kasumi on the other hand is one DLC that appears to be developed to expand and introduce something really new, there's no one like her in the entire group, regarding background, powers and motivations.
Also, you can see various suggestions and/or corrections that fans told Bioware about it, like an SMG with more accuracy.

LotSB is another type of animal, the story was certainlly to be in the game, but Bioware intentionally didn't included in the main game for developing a DLC later.
And then we had the price, wich is in fact, the overprice for the products.

So we return to the same vicious circle, greed.

[DayusMakhina]

casadechrisso wrote...

I wish they went back to making either expansions or DLCs that clearly feel like expansions, contrary to giving the player the feeling they have to pay double to make just the base game complete. The only DLCs I somewhat enjoyed from BW were the ones that felt like they were actually cut out of the main game (i.e. Shadow Broker) or actually were cut out of the main game (i.e. Stone Prisoner). If you look at, say, Fallout New Vegas, that's how I wish BW would do it too - a few unimportant bonus items as preorder bonus, fine, and then DLCs that are clearly expansions. The only recent example that comes to my mind was Mark of the Assassin for DA2, not really my favorite DLC but at least one that actually was done like all DLCs should be and a fair trade.

How on earth can a piece of DLC that was released long after the game feel like it was cut out of the main game? That's just... astonishing. ME2 in no way felt like an incomplete game.

As for Fallout New Vegas: All 4 DLC packs were relatively short, none of them took any longer to complete than Shadow Broker did yet you class them as expansions? Not to mention that those Fallout DLC's were basically churned out in the end, with 3 of them coming out in a period of 5 months. Hardly sounds like expansions to me.

[Nu-Nu]

brfritos wrote...

Also, there's this issue regarding DLC, is something that expands the story or a character or is simply something cutted from the game for gainning a quick buck later?
The so called "free DLC" of Zaeed smells exactly like a cutted content only for fooling people they have something new on their hands!

Zaeed was created purely to deter people from buying the game secondhand game as he was free with a first hand game, to try and claw back some money, not for any other purpose.  

I can understand why they did this. The industry is a lot harder and there's more competition, it's become an industry where Sega nearly became bust, so I can understand why they did that with Zaeed.

[Nial Black-Knee]

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.

Since we're being TOTALY honest *chuckle*  DLC is about money and greed, plain and simple. Those of you who think BW needs more money, hello!!, please stop, BW is making money hand over fist, they are expanding, and growing. To do that you need to be making money. So please stop with the "poor Bioware needs to make money cr*p" .

It is Thier COMPANYand they can and should do what they want. I have no real problem with DLC. I buy what I want, and ignore the worthless filler that I don't want. No problem.

If you have a problem with it. Don't buy it. You are the consumer. You can force companies to do what you want. This is proven. Boycott DLC, get your friends to do it too. But STOP your G0D Damn *****n. Your giving me a headache.

[casadechrisso]

DayusMakhina wrote...

casadechrisso wrote...

I wish they went back to making either expansions or DLCs that clearly feel like expansions, contrary to giving the player the feeling they have to pay double to make just the base game complete. The only DLCs I somewhat enjoyed from BW were the ones that felt like they were actually cut out of the main game (i.e. Shadow Broker) or actually were cut out of the main game (i.e. Stone Prisoner). If you look at, say, Fallout New Vegas, that's how I wish BW would do it too - a few unimportant bonus items as preorder bonus, fine, and then DLCs that are clearly expansions. The only recent example that comes to my mind was Mark of the Assassin for DA2, not really my favorite DLC but at least one that actually was done like all DLCs should be and a fair trade.

How on earth can a piece of DLC that was released long after the game feel like it was cut out of the main game? That's just... astonishing. ME2 in no way felt like an incomplete game.

As for Fallout New Vegas: All 4 DLC packs were relatively short, none of them took any longer to complete than Shadow Broker did yet you class them as expansions? Not to mention that those Fallout DLC's were basically churned out in the end, with 3 of them coming out in a period of 5 months. Hardly sounds like expansions to me.

Shadow Broker really felt like it belonged into the main game simply because before installing it you always thought "wtf is Liara even doing in here?". I can only say how it felt to me and what countless reviews said about it too: It should've been part of the main game.
Stone Prisoner in DA: O again was actually cut content, Shale was originally supoposed to be found in uh.. forgot the name of that place now where you fight hordes of undead and help the possessed child... and was later moved to the DLC place. At least that's what the wiki says...

As for the Fallout NV DLCs, my point is that none of them feel like the game isn't complete if you don't buy them, and nothing inside the base game ever reminds you that you should buy them. DA:O in comparison heavily annoyed with ingame advertisements (NPCs in the world asking you to download), ME2 clearly showed you that there are party members missing if you don't have Kasumi/Zaeed and so on.
Plus, Fallout DLCs can be bought on Steam and on Steam sales for real money and I got them for like 2 Euros each, not 800 Bioware points.

[corporal doody]

casadechrisso wrote...


Shadow Broker really felt like it belonged into the main game simply because before installing it you always thought "wtf is Liara even doing in here?". I can only say how it felt to me and what countless reviews said about it too: It should've been part of the main game.
Stone Prisoner in DA: O again was actually cut content, Shale was originally supoposed to be found in uh.. forgot the name of that place now where you fight hordes of undead and help the possessed child... and was later moved to the DLC place. At least that's what the wiki says...

As for the Fallout NV DLCs, my point is that none of them feel like the game isn't complete if you don't buy them, and nothing inside the base game ever reminds you that you should buy them. DA:O in comparison heavily annoyed with ingame advertisements (NPCs in the world asking you to download), ME2 clearly showed you that there are party members missing if you don't have Kasumi/Zaeed and so on.
Plus, Fallout DLCs can be bought on Steam and on Steam sales for real money and I got them for like 2 Euros each, not 800 Bioware points.

a part of what became LotSB (a small part-dialogue mostly) was supposed to be in the main game...from what ive gathered since jan 2010. Im so glad they decided to take it out, rework it, and release ONE OF THE BEST DLCs i have purchased.

[Bleachrude]

Huh?

I never had a "WTF is Liara doing on Illium?" I mean, we had run into the VS AND Wrex so I had fully expected Liara anyway...Indeed, I thought she was serving the same purpose as Wrex did for Mordin and Grunt's loyalty mission.

Really disagree with the idea of LotSB (or Arrival for that matter) being "essential" to the story since neither of them offer anything specific to ME2 actual storyline.

Now, Overlord...THAT seems more "essential" to the storyline as this is directly tied with not just one but two of your teammates. Especially given their loyalty mission, both Legion and Tali should have been more prominent in that DLC

[Ice Cold J]

I agree that we should get a "finished product" when we purchase it.

However, true DLC expands the life and playability of a game, so I will support THAT forever.

[corporal doody]

forgot to add....IM GLAD THEY TOOK OUT what they were gonna put in regarding Kasumi....SO THEY COULD FIX IT and tweak it! the smooth transition from scene to scene (no loading screens).....that entire mission did not skip a SINGLE BEAT. Kasumi isnt my favorite squaddie...but i saw no issues with how the mission went. If the mission was done BEFORE ME2 went gold..im positive they would have thrown it in game. I have no problem with them selling the dlc the way they did. the way they did Kasumi's mission went to how they did Overlord and LotSB.

Modifié par corporal doody, 09 février 2012 - 04:23 .

[Pedro Costa]

Bleachrude wrote...
I never had a "WTF is Liara doing on Illium?"

Really? The last you heard of her (ie. ME1) she was an idealistic, naive achaelogist ridiculed by her peers, next thing you know (ME2), she's an apparently somewhat cold, wealthy and highly influential information broker on Illium.
And that didn't confuse you even if a little? Never made you go "That's an interesting change of careers, I wonder just what the freaking heck happened"?

[corporal doody]

DarkLord_PT wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
I never had a "WTF is Liara doing on Illium?"

Really? The last you heard of her (ie. ME1) she was an idealistic, naive achaelogist ridiculed by her peers, next thing you know (ME2), she's an apparently somewhat cold, wealthy and highly influential information broker on Illium.
And that didn't confuse you even if a little? Never made you go "That's an interesting change of careers, I wonder just what the freaking heck happened"?

it was explained in conversation with her...IN THE VANILLA pre-LotSB game

www.youtube.com/watch

[AlanC9]

nacholibre83 wrote...

As far as equipment go, there were only one armor in the game (n7), and the other six were DLCs, used for various pre-order promotions (Blood Dragon, Cerberus, Collector's, Inferno, Kestrel, Terminus); there were four head accessories (helmets, visors) in the game (n7 helmet, n7 breather, kuwashii visor, death mask), and another six of them used as DLC promotions (umbra visor, recon hood, sentry interfece, archon visor, capacitor helmet, kestrel helmet); half of the weapons in the game were DLCs..<_<

Does anyone here really think that these things weren't stripped from the original game?

What original game?

No version of ME2 ever existed that wasn't going to have DLC. No version without DLC was even planned.

[AlanC9]

casadechrisso wrote...
Shadow Broker really felt like it belonged into the main game simply because before installing it you always thought "wtf is Liara even doing in here?". I can only say how it felt to me and what countless reviews said about it too: It should've been part of the main game.

Funny -- the impression I got when playing ME2 the first time was that Liara's situation was an obvious DLC hook. Which suited me fine. The Shadow Broker has nothing much to do with the ME2 main quest, so it struck me as exactly the sort of story that should be a DLC.

[WizenSlinky0]

MadLaughter wrote...

Here, people like Priestly comment in threads titled "Who are your least favorite ME characters?" and Priestly responded with something like "Can I say the fans?"
 

Aww come on now, we all need a snarker. That's why we like chris, it's who he is 

[knightnblu]

I have always believed DLC to be underappreciated. Sure, companies use them to enhance weapons and armor, add a little to the story or to substitute for an outright expansion pack, but so much more could be done.

For example, after ME DLC could have continued the story positioning Shepard for his demise by the Collectors. Further, DLC could have shown Shepard's death at which point new DLC could have been shown from the VS's perspective. Coping with the loss of a friend/lover, becoming aware of rumors about Shepard, and so forth. Alternatively, DLC could have been used to explore other sections of the story on the periphery of the main plot line that could come into play down the road.

There are any number of uses for DLC for expanding the story, giving exposition, or exploring interesting characters that had a small part in the larger plot. Say something that dealt with Conrad Verner and how he came to be a Shepard imitator on Illium or Kasumi Goto and the death of her partner and Hock's acquisition of Okuda's gray box.

If the DLC price were kept around 10 to 15 dollars or so I think such a thing would be a success. Not being part of the gaming industry, I have no idea what the economics are that would be involved in such a venture, but if it were profitable, I see no reason why it couldn't be done.

The fans benefit by having a continuing story, the company keeps people excited about the product in between major releases and makes a profit. Some of this has already happened with LotSB and Arrival, but I believe it can go much further than that and could even turn into a serialized game with each episode ending on a cliff hanger until the story has been told. This model was used during the 1940's to great effect in the film industry with Buck Rogers and other characters. Feedback via the fan boards would allow fine tuning of such a project.

Sooner or later somebody will exploit this concept and I think that when they do they will find it to be a winner. So my vote is don't stop the DLC, but take it to its fullest potential.

[Mclouvins]

brfritos wrote...

mranderson25 wrote...

DLC is also there to help combat the losses a developer takes with piracy and used game sales. I'm not saying I'm against the used game market, but developers see ZERO money from used games. Only one person buys it new, then they trade it in and it goes back on the shelf for others to buy. You can see how his would add up. DLC let's the developer make money even on used copies of a game, so at least it's not a total loss. Does that mean they should have skimpy, half-assed DLC? No. But I think Bioware is one of the few developers to actually do DLC right.

I'm just curious of one thing regarding this issue: why game developers are entitled to gain something from second hand products?
Do GM, Ford or VW gain something from second hand vehicles? Or Apple from second hand computers?
Even MS allows you to sell your copy of Windows to another person without any trouble, provided you supply the serial number too.
This type of logic really bafles me, really!

This has a name, is called greed.

There is no equivalency between car sales and used game sales. Almost all car dealerships sell used cars and since salesmen are paid primarily on comission they have an incentive to sell you the most expensive new cars they can. Used game sales are a totally different animal because you have major institutions like Gamestop and all of its subsidiaries that who's policy is to offer a used game for $5 cheaper at the register if they can. At that point the purchaser ceases to be customer of the developer/publisher and is solely a customer for the retailer. Saying that the developer/publisher should not be compensated in any form is foolish.

[Sebbe1337o]

Stanley Woo is owning everyone in this thread, haha!

Anyhow: I also think it's sad that there is extremely much dlc that I just need to have, because I'm absolutely addicted to this franchise. But it will be very expensive for me to get most of it, and impossible to get some since different retailers have different offers etc.

BUT I understand why some is exclusive, but I still think a lot of the content that is day1 dlc could be in-game. Like the bonus character for example.

[AlanC9]

DayusMakhina wrote...

casadechrisso wrote...

I wish they went back to making either expansions or DLCs that clearly feel like expansions, contrary to giving the player the feeling they have to pay double to make just the base game complete. The only DLCs I somewhat enjoyed from BW were the ones that felt like they were actually cut out of the main game (i.e. Shadow Broker) or actually were cut out of the main game (i.e. Stone Prisoner). If you look at, say, Fallout New Vegas, that's how I wish BW would do it too - a few unimportant bonus items as preorder bonus, fine, and then DLCs that are clearly expansions. The only recent example that comes to my mind was Mark of the Assassin for DA2, not really my favorite DLC but at least one that actually was done like all DLCs should be and a fair trade.

How on earth can a piece of DLC that was released long after the game feel like it was cut out of the main game? That's just... astonishing. ME2 in no way felt like an incomplete game.

It's an interesting problem. The better a DLC is, the more likely it is that someone like casadechrisso is going to feel like it should have been in the main game.

I don't see how Bio resolves this except by ignoring casadechrisso, giving up DLC altogether, or deliberately making bad DLCs.

[legion999]

DayusMakhina wrote...

casadechrisso wrote...

I wish they went back to making either expansions or DLCs that clearly feel like expansions, contrary to giving the player the feeling they have to pay double to make just the base game complete. The only DLCs I somewhat enjoyed from BW were the ones that felt like they were actually cut out of the main game (i.e. Shadow Broker) or actually were cut out of the main game (i.e. Stone Prisoner). If you look at, say, Fallout New Vegas, that's how I wish BW would do it too - a few unimportant bonus items as preorder bonus, fine, and then DLCs that are clearly expansions. The only recent example that comes to my mind was Mark of the Assassin for DA2, not really my favorite DLC but at least one that actually was done like all DLCs should be and a fair trade.

How on earth can a piece of DLC that was released long after the game feel like it was cut out of the main game? That's just... astonishing. ME2 in no way felt like an incomplete game.

As for Fallout New Vegas: All 4 DLC packs were relatively short, none of them took any longer to complete than Shadow Broker did yet you class them as expansions? Not to mention that those Fallout DLC's were basically churned out in the end, with 3 of them coming out in a period of 5 months. Hardly sounds like expansions to me.

I have to diagree. New Vegas DLC ranged from 5 to 8 hours for me while LOTSB took 1 to 2 hours. And considering how the New Vegas DLC (Honest Hearts, Old World Blues and Lonesome Road FYI) was worked on for months before they were released I can't see how they were churned out.

On-topic if the From Dust DLC is Mr P. I'm fine with it. If not WTH?

Also DLC being tacked on to EVERYTHING is getting a bit annoying to be honest.

[MingWolf]

MadLaughter wrote...

Here's the thing Stanley doesn't seem to notice and EA definitely doesn't. Building a strong relationship with customers who are fans is an indirect way to improve sales of their game. I'll give a topical recent example:

Double Fine Studios, with people like Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert, just crowdsourced funding for their next game. They wanted to get $300,000 in 33 days. Guess what...they got over 500,000 dollars in less than TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. You know why? Because that company has a very positive relationship with its' customers. On the Kickstarter page, they promised to be the most transparent developers of all time on this project. And it worked.

What if EA tried to do this? It would blow up in their faces. People don't trust them, and they do not have figureheads like Schafer or Ron Gilbert that are more interested in the creative vision of their games than pure money. EA/Bioware are ridiculously secretive with their development and confusing with their DLC/Bonus Content, it creates a barrier to entry that they don't seem to realize. I respect being secretive about Story for ME3, but they adhere to such a strict marketing schedule and even then sometimes fail to follow through that it's a huge bummer.

People performed a miracle for Double Fine studios because they like them, and they trust them. Their employees are generally cheery and respectful to their fans.

Here, people like Priestly comment in threads titled "Who are your least favorite ME characters?" and Priestly responded with something like "Can I say the fans?"

You know why the user score on Metacritic gets bombed for Dragon Age 2, Bioware? It's because people perceived EA as evil, Bioware employees that were snarky instead of helpful, and the fact that they had the most ridiculous bonus/dlc scheme to date.

Be transparent, be KIND TO YOUR USERS, and the world will respond in kind.

Good post.  If there is anything that would help EA, it would be this. 

[casadechrisso]

AlanC9 wrote...

DayusMakhina wrote...

casadechrisso wrote...

I wish they went back to making either expansions or DLCs that clearly feel like expansions, contrary to giving the player the feeling they have to pay double to make just the base game complete. The only DLCs I somewhat enjoyed from BW were the ones that felt like they were actually cut out of the main game (i.e. Shadow Broker) or actually were cut out of the main game (i.e. Stone Prisoner). If you look at, say, Fallout New Vegas, that's how I wish BW would do it too - a few unimportant bonus items as preorder bonus, fine, and then DLCs that are clearly expansions. The only recent example that comes to my mind was Mark of the Assassin for DA2, not really my favorite DLC but at least one that actually was done like all DLCs should be and a fair trade.

How on earth can a piece of DLC that was released long after the game feel like it was cut out of the main game? That's just... astonishing. ME2 in no way felt like an incomplete game.

It's an interesting problem. The better a DLC is, the more likely it is that someone like casadechrisso is going to feel like it should have been in the main game.

I don't see how Bio resolves this except by ignoring casadechrisso, giving up DLC altogether, or deliberately making bad DLCs.

No. Take Mark of the Assassin, a DLC I personally didn't like that much, but many did and it was quite fine on my sheet too. That's a fair DLC, it doesn't feel cut out of the main story, it's worth the price and everyone's happy. Shadow Broker was a very good DLC too, probably the best I played, but as someone said above it was clearly planned from the beginning, maybe even cut out in parts and the game feels kinda incomplete without it. Before I bought it I was really wondering why Liara was even included in the game, as I said above.

As for the rest, don't worry too much:

- Bioware will ignore me as long as enough fans keep buying even the last useless item DLCs (if Bioware offered a horse armor, people would buy that too). Actually, I don't think there's any reason why they shouldn't ignore me. I'm not that special.

- a good DLC doesn't have to feel like a cut from the main game (see examples above)

- Bioware has the deliberately bad DLCs covered already. Most are.