730 réponses à ce sujet

[NOD-INFORMER37]

mulder1199 wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

mulder1199 wrote...

Alex_SM 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.

Car manufacturers see zero money from used cars.
TV manufacturers see zero money from used TVs.
House builders see zero money from used houses. 
Etc...

Why should game developers be different?  

the bigger return they get on me3, the more likely we are to see me4...

And that can easily be done without them resorting to making more money off used games and countless pricey dlc-tacked products. 

probably true, but they are a business....

You're right and I understand that their goal is to make money, but all these lowdown schemes to squeeze more money out of an already lucrative game is just sickening. Not only does it hurt the customer but it hurts them too! 

As if EA cared though <_<

[KainrycKarr]

As long as I get the quantity and quality that I did with ME2, I'll be quite happy. Do not agree with OP.

[Alex_SM]

Nu-Nu wrote...

Alex_SM 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.

Car manufacturers see zero money from used cars.
TV manufacturers see zero money from used TVs.
House constructors see zero money from used houses.
Etc...

Why should game developers see any cent for used games?  

You don't quite get it. What game developers are trying to do is divert money that could be used on second hand games onto first hand products, whether that be in dlc form.

Their attitude is, sure pay for a secondhand game, that ok, but you won't gt this cool character that's only free with the firsthand game unless you pay extra to download him.

Usually you have to pay for the most DLC even having the new game. 

And nowadays, with all the "one license attached to one person" ****, things are starting to be quite different. Developers are starting to forbid second hand, and at least that in the UE has been proved to be illegal. Selling your used goods is a basic consumer right.  

Business is business, but there are fair and unfair ways. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 09 février 2012 - 06:39 .

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...
 Saying that Liara's inclusion felt pointless, you may as well have thought that we were going to get dlc with either Wrex or the VS survivor.

Well, I can see why they wouldn't do one with Wrex since he isn't guaranteed to be alive. I would have liked a VS DLC.

And yes, if they had made a VS DLC we'd be hearing that the DLC should have been in ME2 rather than being a DLC.

[mulder1199]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

mulder1199 wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

mulder1199 wrote...

Alex_SM 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.

Car manufacturers see zero money from used cars.
TV manufacturers see zero money from used TVs.
House builders see zero money from used houses. 
Etc...

Why should game developers be different?  

the bigger return they get on me3, the more likely we are to see me4...

And that can easily be done without them resorting to making more money off used games and countless pricey dlc-tacked products. 

probably true, but they are a business....

You're right and I understand that their goal is to make money, but all these lowdown schemes to squeeze more money out of an already lucrative game is just sickening. Not only does it hurt the customer but it hurts them too! 

As if EA cared though <_<

doesn't hurt them unless people boycott the product, which doesn't seem to be the case

[NOD-INFORMER37]

mulder1199 wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

mulder1199 wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

mulder1199 wrote...

Alex_SM 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.

Car manufacturers see zero money from used cars.
TV manufacturers see zero money from used TVs.
House builders see zero money from used houses. 
Etc...

Why should game developers be different?  

the bigger return they get on me3, the more likely we are to see me4...

And that can easily be done without them resorting to making more money off used games and countless pricey dlc-tacked products. 

probably true, but they are a business....

You're right and I understand that their goal is to make money, but all these lowdown schemes to squeeze more money out of an already lucrative game is just sickening. Not only does it hurt the customer but it hurts them too! 

As if EA cared though <_<

doesn't hurt them unless people boycott the product, which doesn't seem to be the case

It obviously doesnt hurt them much money wise no, but it hurts them in every other way.

Modifié par NOD-INFORMER37, 09 février 2012 - 06:46 .

[AlanC9]

Alex_SM wrote...
A game still only satisfies one person at a time. 

You missed the point. If a player is done with a game -- finished, is never going to play it again -- he's still done with it even after he's sold the game. The reason he's selling the game is that it can't satisfy his gaming needs anymore. It is used up for him, but fully functional for another gamer. So I should have phrased it differently -- multiple players can extract the full utility of a single copy of the game.

Cars don't work like that. Nobody sells a car that he's extracted all the value from -- if he did, it wouldn't be functional anymore.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 février 2012 - 06:47 .

[wolfsite]

Wulfram wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

The N7 weapons are included in the Collectors Edition as a bonus.

Exactly.   They're not part of the regular game.  Yet they are being used to advertise the game with no indication of this. 

It's dishonest

No it's not,  It's showing items that can be purchased in the Collectors Edition.  If you want them you can get the collector's Edition.  Frankly it would be a bit of a spoiler if they just come out and tell everybody what in the game.

Actually I just double check and the Valkyrie is actualy free DLC to people who pre-order so anyone can get it regardless of CE or SE.

Plus you have the free items available from playing the KOA Reckoning so there are incentives.

[Alex_SM]

AlanC9 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...
A game still only satisfies one person at a time. 

You missed the point. If a player is done with a game -- finished, is never going to play it again -- he's still done with it even after he's sold the game. The reason he's selling the game is that it can't satisfy his gaming needs anymore. It is used up for him, but fully functional for another gamer. So I should have phrased it differently -- multiple players can extract the full utility of a single copy of the game.

Cars don't work like that. Nobody sells a car that he's extracted all the value from -- if he did, it wouldn't be functional anymore.

If a player is done with a car, he is still done with it even after having it sold. And the car can be fully funcional for the new owner and give him the same service as it gave to the previous one. The first owner may not want to drive it ever again. 

One of the last cars bought in my family was an 8 years old Lancia Thema in PERFECT conditions. It worked wonderfully for another 15 years in very harsh evironments, and it only stopped due to a maintenance mistake. 

Also the "never going to play it again" is false. I know many people who buy games on release (let's say... around 50€), sell them after a week or so (around 30€ recovered), to buy another new game, and then rebuys them on sale (for 5€ or so) to play it again. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 09 février 2012 - 06:59 .

[Wulfram]

Well I exchanged a couple of tweets with Mr. Silverman and it seems they're going to swap them out, so everything is OK.

[AlanC9]

Alex_SM wrote...
If a player is done with a car, he is still done with it even after having it sold. And the car can be fully funcional for the new owner and give him the same service as it gave to the previous one. The first owner may not want to drive it ever again.

It can give the same service, but not the same value. It can't last as long anymore. The total utility of the car at manufacture is its utility at any given moment integrated over the entire life-span of the car.

Also the "never going to play it again" is false. I know many people who buy games on release (let's say... around 50€), sell them after a week or so (around 30€ recovered), to buy another new game, and then rebuys them on sale (for 5€ or so) to play it again. 

False for some players, maybe even for "many." But the data's pretty conclusive that it's not false for a majority of players.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 février 2012 - 07:04 .

[ArkkAngel007]

Alex_SM wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...
A game still only satisfies one person at a time. 

You missed the point. If a player is done with a game -- finished, is never going to play it again -- he's still done with it even after he's sold the game. The reason he's selling the game is that it can't satisfy his gaming needs anymore. It is used up for him, but fully functional for another gamer. So I should have phrased it differently -- multiple players can extract the full utility of a single copy of the game.

Cars don't work like that. Nobody sells a car that he's extracted all the value from -- if he did, it wouldn't be functional anymore.

If a player is done with a car, he is still done with it even after having it sold. And the car can be fully funcional for the new owner and give him the same service as it gave to the previous one. The first owner may not want to drive it ever again. 

Also the "never going to play it again" is false. I know many people who buy games on release (let's say... around 50€), sell them after a week or so (around 30€ recovered), to buy another new game, and then rebuys them on sale (for 5€ or so) to play it again. 

Have kids who want the same game, and then realize that game can only be played by one.  Sorry, but buying more than one copy of a game, that should be my property as they have been for decades, is just not economically sound.

There is a huge difference from somone with limited resources and connections selling a game from 10 to 25 dollars then a corporation with huge resources and a giant consumer base that they prioritize selling used-games for 55 dollars to on the day or two past launch.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Wulfram wrote...

Well I exchanged a couple of tweets with Mr. Silverman and it seems they're going to swap them out, so everything is OK.

 What are they going to swap out? 

[Alex_SM]

AlanC9 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...
If a player is done with a car, he is still done with it even after having it sold. And the car can be fully funcional for the new owner and give him the same service as it gave to the previous one. The first owner may not want to drive it ever again.

It can give the same service, but not the same value. It can't last as long anymore. The total utility of the car at manufacture is its utility at any given moment integrated over the entire life-span of the car.

That still happens for games. 

1 - Physical copies don't last forever
2 - Hardware/Software compatibility don't last forever (a few years in the case of consoles).
3 - Consider that "one playtrhough" is the total utility of a game is equal to consider that the game is mediocre at best. 

If they make a game that you can finish in a few hours with zero replaying value is only their fault. A good game (the same for a movie or a book) is one you want to keep with yourself forever, so it's "total utility" is not one playtrough, but several years of playing. 

[Alex_SM]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Have kids who want the same game, and then realize that game can only be played by one.  Sorry, but buying more than one copy of a game, that should be my property as they have been for decades, is just not economically sound.

I think that's another issue, and a serious one. 

There is a huge difference from somone with limited resources and connections selling a game from 10 to 25 dollars then a corporation with huge resources and a giant consumer base that they prioritize selling used-games for 55 dollars to on the day or two past launch.

If they sell the games on day two is because someone who previously bought it went there to sell it. 

The same happens to nearly everything. It's easy to find used cars of just released models for 2.000€-4.000€ less than the new one, with less than 10.000km. And the same distributors that sell the new ones are the ones selling the second hand ones. They even encourage people to buy those instead of the new ones. That's just normal. 

[AlanC9]

Alex_SM wrote...
That still happens for games. 

1 - Physical copies don't last forever
2 - Hardware/Software compatibility don't last forever (a few years in the case of consoles).
3 - Consider that "one playtrhough" is the total utility of a game is equal to consider that the game is mediocre at best.

Points 1 and 2 are true, but irrelevant for gamers who will have extracted all their utility before those events occur. They also put a cap on the number of players who can extract full utility from a single copy.

Point 3 is true for gamers who find that game mediocre, but irrelevant. If the player finds that game mediocre, he's still extracted the full utility from that copy.

If they make a game that you can finish in a few hours with zero replaying value is only their fault. A good game (the same for a movie or a book) is one you want to keep with yourself forever, so it's "total utility" is not one playtrough, but several years of playing. 

For a game that you think was great, sure. That isn't true for most games or most gamers.

[Wulfram]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Well I exchanged a couple of tweets with Mr. Silverman and it seems they're going to swap them out, so everything is OK.

 What are they going to swap out? 

The weapons being used as examples on the website without making clear that they were Collector edition/pre order content.  But they've addressed the issue

[Alex_SM]

AlanC9 wrote...


Points 1 and 2 are true, but irrelevant for gamers who will have extracted all their utility before those events occur. They also put a cap on the number of players who can extract full utility from a single copy.

Point 3 is true for gamers who find that game mediocre, but irrelevant. If the player finds that game mediocre, he's still extracted the full utility from that copy.

And why is it different from someone who buys a car and thinks is crap? Or who wants it for 4 years, and then wants another? For him the "total utility" are 4 years. 

 You are admiting that the "full utility" is something subjective. If it where objetive, then it would be independant on gamers opinion about it. So you can't say that a person who sells it has extracted it's full utility, and that a person who sells an object, like a car, hasn't.  It depends on what are the demands on the product. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 09 février 2012 - 07:26 .

[NekOoNinja]

Dear OP,
you are exaggrating. A lot.

I see the DLC's as a way of giving the creators a tip for a game I enjoy playing. For ME 2, I got plenty of good content in return, LotSb takes me about an hour or two to finish, but even after my 5th or 6th playthrough I still complete the DLC missions. Because I like them.

To the Weapons: The DLC's brought me the Phalanx pistol, which is quite powerful but difficult to use (laserpointer instead of crosshair). It can kill an enemy in 1 headshot or 2 (on hardore+) but has a ridiculously small clip size of 6, and fires really slowly. Makes a missed shot even more painful. How is that overpowered?

I hope to see more quality DLC for ME3, be it story missions, characters or interesting Weapon concepts. They spice up the game, something that is very welcome iafter the n-th playthrough.

Modifié par NekOoNinja, 09 février 2012 - 07:31 .

[Habs25]

DLC is great, analogy to the Mona Lisa with a piece missing that gets sold as extra is just ridiculous. The full game comes out, then there is extra content you can get for a reasonable price - if you don't wanna buy it, DON'T. I think DLC is a good idea specially with games that have sequels, it's a great way to add to a game while waiting for the next segment. This QQ about DLC is annoying...

[NOD-INFORMER37]

The thing is we have very little info on all this DLC. We dont know what they are, what mode it will all be on, we dont know if some DLC coming with one product is the same as another, we dont even know if it will be available later. I think thats even worse than the price, because those who are looking to get everything they can for the full experience are looking at $500+, it might not be as bad if they knew which DLC they were getting

[BatmanPWNS]

Are you from 2005 or something? Cuz every big game has DLC now. It's become mainstream and Bioware won't change their mind because of some whiners on BSN.

[Ice Cold J]

The PLC wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...

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.

Just seems a bit weird to 'expand the life' of a game with a bunch of dlc items on day-1.

I agree. To me that is either 1) A "gift" for true/diehard fans (exclusive, C.E. content) or, more likely 2) Cash in on "unfinished product."

So, yes, I stand pat on this. Your scenario implies an unfinished product, which is garbage. Things like Overlord or just about anything from Red Dead or Fallout 3, which seem to be afterthoughts, are legitimate DLC.

[Rob Roy]

Hey Stanley, since you're fielding a lot of questions about DLC could you possibly resolve a question that I've been trying to get answered for a while now? In ME2 I bought the Collector's Edition for the 360 and the regular version for the PC. I was pleasantly surprised when I started playing the PC version that all of my Collector's Edition and pre-order DLC from the 360 had unlocked for the PC as well. Will it work the same way for ME3? If so, I'm willing to add a pre-order of the PC standard version on Origin to the 360 Collector's Edition I have pre-ordered at Gamestop if it means I'm going to have the N7 Arsenal, Warfare Gear and the AT12 Raider Shotgun on both platforms.