227 réponses à ce sujet

[Arcadian Legend]

I like this human. He understands.

[sorentoft]

Just one thing, where did that derogatory term "biodrone" come from?

[Nordicus]

It's a monster from the old X-COM games, some brain in robotic body that would defend its master until death

[KnifeForkAndSpoon]

sorentoft wrote...

Just one thing, where did that derogatory term "biodrone" come from?

Far as I can tell someone just thought it up and it stuck. The term was originally applied primarily to Dragon Age 2 apologists.

[LCD Dave N7]

With regard to the DLC issue as a whole I have no problem with it. You can either buy it or not.

The problem I do have is the growing trend for exclusive DLC. Being in a situation where you might have to pre-order a videogame 6 months in advance, at 3 different stores on 3 different platforms in order to enjoy the full experience is awful.

[Baal Sagoth]

"I am Commander Shepard and this is my favourite Forbes article on internet"

We can only hope that treshold point is closer than we think, but I fear it is a very long way until gamers will stop gladly taking being pushed into their rear hole.

[JoHnDoE14]

Why humans have to be so idiotic? If we ALL don't buy games like this, we will get our loved games in the end. WE HAVE TO RESIST. ME is my favourite series. Yet I am NOT going to buy it.

[Dean_the_Young]

JoHnDoE14 wrote...

Why humans have to be so idiotic? If we ALL don't buy games like this, we will get our loved games in the end. WE HAVE TO RESIST. ME is my favourite series. Yet I am NOT going to buy it.

Er, no.

If everyone doesn't buy games like this, games like this won't be made.

Because, you know, people showed they weren't going to pay for a block-buster game with block-buster pricing. Which the companies kind of need to stay afloat, because they don't stand to last long selling at a loss or just breaking even.


That's what you show when you don't buy a game: that you aren't a reliable customer, and that the game of this scale isn't a reliable investment. What you'll actually get afterwards is cheaper, less expensive, and far less developed games because they're going to have to cut a lot of that development cost in order to get to the range you'll pay for.


If no one buys DLC, no DLC will be made because it's a loss. If no one buys expensive games, games that are expensive to make won't be made because selling them cheap is a loss.

'The games you love', the ones that rely on DLC for making up more money, won't exist if you demand and reach lower prices and no DLC. The game is not inherently going to exist for you.


Over-capacity works both against us (DLC sales), but also for us (more expansive, intensive games developed). When you cut back on one, the other is going to recede as well.

[AJRimmsey]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's what you show when you don't buy a game: that you aren't a reliable customer, and that the game of this scale isn't a reliable investment. What you'll actually get afterwards is cheaper, less expensive, and far less developed games because they're going to have to cut a lot of that development cost in order to get to the range you'll pay for.

Which is where we are for the last 3 years.
lower standards and higher pricing.

I know you were trying to be a niice loyal doggie,but you inadvertantly supported the OP`s claims

[Random citizen]

The best thing we can do is to support companies that produce quality products and are not primarily driven by money, those will have enough customers anyway (who either are content with lower quality or just are trapped in an endless "maybe next time".) Big money and corporate mentality taking over explains a lot of what is going on in gaming. (overshadowing monetary motivation impedes creative and artisic quality).

Modifié par Random citizen, 25 février 2012 - 04:14 .

[Aaleel]

AJRimmsey wrote...

Which is where we are for the last 3 years.
lower standards and higher pricing.

I know you were trying to be a niice loyal doggie,but you inadvertantly supported the OP`s claims

Definitely this.

[Dean_the_Young]

AJRimmsey wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's what you show when you don't buy a game: that you aren't a reliable customer, and that the game of this scale isn't a reliable investment. What you'll actually get afterwards is cheaper, less expensive, and far less developed games because they're going to have to cut a lot of that development cost in order to get to the range you'll pay for.

Which is where we are for the last 3 years.
lower standards and higher pricing.

I know you were trying to be a niice loyal doggie,but you inadvertantly supported the OP`s claims

Bar, of course, that the last 3 years have seen some of the most technically sophisticated games with the largest budgets to date.

Pesky details and all that.


Now, while you could certainly argue that budgets are being misallocated (I certainly don't demand costlier celeberity voice actors like Seth Green or Martin Sheen, nor do I demand movie-quality cutscenes), it's much harder to argue against the fact that game development costs have gone up in the last few years, and that players increasingly expect the graphical and visual quality that goes along with that.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 février 2012 - 04:35 .

[OneDrunkMonk]

I'd like to see video game developers get a a cut of used video game sales and rentals. Merely takes an agreement between used video game retailers and renters and the developer. Hopefully would curb video game developers and publishers milking every last drop out of gamers who buy new releases more than rent or buy used. Since BioWare joined EA Mass Effect has been monetized to hell and back, well if people want to buy lithographs, sweatshirts, virtual items for their Xbox avatar, fine. But all that extra revenue should in a large part go into the game and content that inspires release day purchases. ME2 came with a lot of free goodies for those who bought new. Non of the add-ons were important to the storyline. Non of the DLC add-ons post release were essential to the story either (though I'm interested to know how important Kasumi's greybox potentially turns out to be in ME3). The Prothean character is arguably very important to the ME3 story since the mystery of the Protheans has been integral since ME1. Unless BioWare downplayed the Prothean importance in ME3 (which would be unfortunate).

At any rate how much money does EA think gamers have? It's not like the cost of living is going down.

[Moonshadow_Dark]

sorentoft wrote...

Just one thing, where did that derogatory term "biodrone" come from?

Pauly Shore.

[JuiceIsJuice]

Its funny to see how people feel forced to buy DLC while the choice is still in their hands.

People are just addicted to buying stuff that they need everything to feel satisfied. Thats what companies do right. This not EA's invention. Every company on this damn world does it. Every company knows how greedy people are and how people want to feel special.

As long as humans are greedy, this stuff wont stop. Learn to set limits for yourself and you will be a much happier human.

Modifié par JuiceIsJuice, 25 février 2012 - 05:06 .

[DigitalMaster37]

Guns_of_Freedom wrote...

To everyone still complaining that you have to pay to get exclusive CE DLC how about you tell Bioware thank you for even giving you a chance to play the DLC

As much as I am in favor of BioWare on this issue, this statement makes no sense. I owe BioWare nothing but money t experience that DLC. It's business. The article is 110% accurate and spot on.

We are at fault for every single penny EA and other companies get for these games. it's like a picture of a person fussing about the food tasting nasty but voraciously eating it beyond recognition. We are at fault for how we are treated. 

Same goes for social interaction. If you are mistreated, it is your fault for giving people the impression that they can do that to you. 

All in all, it is business. simply put. Supply and demand, give and take. $$$ you have it, they want it and if you find what they have valuable, you most likely will exchange your cash for their merchandise... end of story. 

[DigitalMaster37]

AJRimmsey wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's what you show when you don't buy a game: that you aren't a reliable customer, and that the game of this scale isn't a reliable investment. What you'll actually get afterwards is cheaper, less expensive, and far less developed games because they're going to have to cut a lot of that development cost in order to get to the range you'll pay for.

Which is where we are for the last 3 years.
lower standards and higher pricing.

I know you were trying to be a niice loyal doggie,but you inadvertantly supported the OP`s claims

I think Dean has some good points though. The truth is that without a certain budget, these AAA games won't get made. The key word in this is risk. Risk management for a company is huge and companies like the EA's, Activisions and such are huge companies and every product they make has to be a certain level and quality. If those companies don't believe the reward will be significant enough, they will not take the chance. Now, the other side of it is that the answer is not for us to blindly give them our money when they try to bleed us dry, but instead to boycott the DLC, not the game.

Buy used if you must for this game if you want to protest and simply don't buy DLC. This will send a message. Wait until the DLC and game go on sale and then buy it. That sends messages. Totally deciding not to buy this game won't solve anything on a grand scale. Everyone would need to take part in order for it to send a resounding message. That won't happen. So at this point, you not buying the game only means YOU will miss out on the experience, unless you yourself can incite a backlash the likes of which hasn't been seen in decades. 

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If everyone doesn't buy games like this, games like this won't be made.

Because, you know, people showed they weren't going to pay for a block-buster game with block-buster pricing. Which the companies kind of need to stay afloat, because they don't stand to last long selling at a loss or just breaking even.

That's what you show when you don't buy a game: that you aren't a reliable customer, and that the game of this scale isn't a reliable investment. What you'll actually get afterwards is cheaper, less expensive, and far less developed games because they're going to have to cut a lot of that development cost in order to get to the range you'll pay for.

Would it necessarily be bad if games cost less to make?

This is one of those counterfactuals that I find hard to evaluate. Depends on how far back we go, I guess. NWN2? KotOR? NWN1? BG2? Fallout?

Or does it just fail anyway because gamers don't actually want to go back, so you just lose tons of sales if you walk back from current AAA standards?

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 février 2012 - 06:13 .

[Karimloo]

I would love for an EA rep or a BioWare rep to respond or rebuttle. This is well written, well thought out, by both Total Biscuit and Forbes. This is something I've been wanting to say but never could find the words for it, something in the back of my mind that was eating away, and these two kind of unlocked it and worked it out for me.

And knowing how this forum works, the admins will either lock it down or ignore it as it contains significant and worthy material to discuss, but they stray away from the big issues at hand such as this.

Whatever BioWare, keep eating from EA's hands.

[AlanC9]

Karimloo wrote...
Whatever BioWare, keep eating from EA's hands.

Bio is EA. There's no difference. Hasn't been for years.

[Aulis Vaara]

I think this is a much better video.

I, personally, won't be getting the DLC. Both because of what has already been said often enough, and because the prothean looks like a collector. Which doesn't appeal to me... at all.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlanC9 wrote...

Would it necessarily be bad if games cost less to make?

It depends on what you expect out of a game. People are aware of AAA blockbusters. They want that quality. It's expected, and it has set the bar.

A game that costs less to make won't provide that quality, but the bar will remain.

The balance is up to the consumer. Consumers always want more quality than they like paying for: if consumers had it their way, they'd get everything for nothing.


If games decrease in quality AND price, what do you think players will say: 'thank got for a better cost-benefit ratio', or 'why is Bioware making shovel-ware **** instead of good games?'

This is one of those counterfactuals that I find hard to evaluate. Depends on how far back we go, I guess. NWN2? KotOR? NWN1? BG2? Fallout?

Or does it just fail anyway because gamers don't actually want to go back, so you just lose tons of sales if you walk back from current AAA standards?

The later.

When people get accustomed to a new standard, any back tracking on it becomes a flaw, even if quality is superior to what they enjoyed in the past.

[Jake71887]

AlanC9 wrote...

Karimloo wrote...
Whatever BioWare, keep eating from EA's hands.

Bio is EA. There's no difference. Hasn't been for years.

Influence is not the same as total control.

[The Tesla Effect]

 I LIKE THIS HUMAN, HE UNDERSTANDS!

[Kog27]

Capt Obvious to the rescue, yes thats why people are actually boycotting the product now, no more money/sales for Eaware