159 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

Severyx wrote...

So, let me get this straight...

You'd love to sit in an office and spend hours upon hours modeling, adding textures, implementing mechanics, running data simulations to balance itty bits, and doing it all over again for the purposes of QA for free?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

That's an interesting statement, cause that's exactly what modding communities have done for years with various games.

Heck, you should take a look at project freespace if you want your eyes opened with just how much time and effort some people are willing to put into these kind of things for free.

Some people and companies create games because of a love for the games. Some do it because of a love for the money.

EA seems the latter to me, and the degraded quality is starting to show for it.

[Severyx]

I love how that even after it's been spelled out by developers, raging forumites still can't understand what day 1 DLC is or why it's deployed the way it is with a pricetag. At least I won't have to worry about said forumites ever getting into the game industry - they'd go bankrupt trying to fulfill their own wishes.

You're unnecessarily getting mixed up between 'relevant' and 'critical'. "From Ashes" is 'story relevant', yes. If it wasn't, why bother tying it to ME3? It is in no way 'story critical'. You don't need to have this content to experience the ME3 game as it was certified to be played.

It's like players of a tournament-focused fighting game complaining about the fact that their favorite anime character wasn't included in the game roster. It's just misunderstood and off-base.

[AkiKishi]

stu_ wrote...

I'm sure the handfull of gamers cancelling orders will be noticed by EA/Bioware because of the multiple millions of copy's that will still get sold.

not.

We don't really know how many are being canceled. Also a lot of people are too invested in ME3 to cancel, they have said so often enough on the boards. You won't see the full effect of this on ME3 but whatever comes after it.

Some guy taking a crap on the space release of ME3, thats' a powerful statement.

[Wulfram]

Severyx wrote...

I love how that even after it's been spelled out by developers, raging forumites still can't understand what day 1 DLC is or why it's deployed the way it is with a pricetag. At least I won't have to worry about said forumites ever getting into the game industry - they'd go bankrupt trying to fulfill their own wishes.

You're unnecessarily getting mixed up between 'relevant' and 'critical'. "From Ashes" is 'story relevant', yes. If it wasn't, why bother tying it to ME3? It is in no way 'story critical'. You don't need to have this content to experience the ME3 game as it was certified to be played.

It's like players of a tournament-focused fighting game complaining about the fact that their favorite anime character wasn't included in the game roster. It's just misunderstood and off-base.

This isn't about Day 1 DLC.

[Rotkaepchen]

wolfsite wrote...

If you want to blame someone for DLC and pricing blame the consumer.  The consumer has shown that this method of providing content is viable for companies to generate revenue.  Also not buying the game doesn't tell the company DLC doesn't work as sales figures for DLC are compared to the number of total units of the original item sold, so if they have a high turn around on the original item but very low DLC then they get the message that the DLC didn't work.

Nice try wolfsite, attempting to prove that boycotting the main game wouldn't say anything about the acceptance of the day 1 DLC.

But not buying the main game might show BW that they pi** us off by castrating the main game for the extra money.

[FluffyScarf]

Yes, that's a great reflection on 'gamers'. No wonder they're seen as bottom-feeders.

[stu_]

nvm

Modifié par stu_, 26 février 2012 - 01:00 .

[Severyx]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Severyx wrote...

So, let me get this straight...

You'd love to sit in an office and spend hours upon hours modeling, adding textures, implementing mechanics, running data simulations to balance itty bits, and doing it all over again for the purposes of QA for free?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

That's an interesting statement, cause that's exactly what modding communities have done for years with various games.

Heck, you should take a look at project freespace if you want your eyes opened with just how much time and effort some people are willing to put into these kind of things for free.

Some people and companies create games because of a love for the games. Some do it because of a love for the money.

EA seems the latter to me, and the degraded quality is starting to show for it.

Correction: Some people and communities create games because of a love for the games. Companies do it to keep their business running.

You can't make a livelihood out of shelling out free content, no matter what you'd like to think. Donations are never, ever a reliable source of income. Each of those people 'creating games because of a love for the games' are doing so of their own time. Chances are, they have jobs separate from this wonderful hobby.

How a company conducts business is one thing, but don't ever squander the professional efforts of the devs of today's greatest games. You're throwing developers into the same lot as publishers, which is not the way it works at all.

*Deep breath* Sorry for that. Just felt that there's a major issue with people (not you specifically) trying to make sense of a system they don't understand.

[Rockworm503]

Shadowrun1177 wrote...

So does that mean that you'll treat other game companies who do the same thing with dlc packs the same way. I mean look at games like Mortal Kombat with all its dlc or the Street Fighter games I don't really see people getting up in arms about being charged for character skins and such for them or how about the fact the games like MW3 charges for maps and weapons downloads. It's wrong to jump on Bioware for doing something that other companies are doing and in some case charging more for the stuff.

Do people not see a difference between DLC and priced first day DLC at all?
Its all the same to you?

I have Mortal Kombat and I did not pay a cent for those overpriced fighters.

[Severyx]

Wulfram wrote...

Severyx wrote...

I love how that even after it's been spelled out by developers, raging forumites still can't understand what day 1 DLC is or why it's deployed the way it is with a pricetag. At least I won't have to worry about said forumites ever getting into the game industry - they'd go bankrupt trying to fulfill their own wishes.

You're unnecessarily getting mixed up between 'relevant' and 'critical'. "From Ashes" is 'story relevant', yes. If it wasn't, why bother tying it to ME3? It is in no way 'story critical'. You don't need to have this content to experience the ME3 game as it was certified to be played.

It's like players of a tournament-focused fighting game complaining about the fact that their favorite anime character wasn't included in the game roster. It's just misunderstood and off-base.

This isn't about Day 1 DLC.

I should have quoted. My bad. The day one DLC post was aimed at simiancustard's general and misguided disdain for developers in general.

[stgrey]

I want more dlc, more content and ready to pay.

[Blarty]

BobSmith101 wrote...
We don't really know how many are being canceled. Also a lot of people are too invested in ME3 to cancel, they have said so often enough on the boards. You won't see the full effect of this on ME3 but whatever comes after it.

Some guy taking a crap on the space release of ME3, thats' a powerful statement.

A powerful statement about what though? That people feel they're being ripped off by EA, or that some people are acting like brats because they're not getting what they want for free, and either way will go to outlandish extremes to show it, in a way that the majority of people will believe is childish?

I believe that this 'powerful statement' as you put it, will do more harm than good, in the long run.

[Rotkaepchen]

stu_ wrote...

I'm sure the handfull of gamers cancelling orders will be noticed by EA/Bioware because of the multiple millions of copy's that will still get sold.

not.

You're right, the few cancelled orders won't help sh**. But while we're doing it, and voiceing our protest, at the end of the day we can say, we've tried.

[Freakiq]

They should just keep it CE so people can un-bunch their panties.

[stu_]

Severyx wrote...




Correction: Some people and communities create games because of a love for the games. Companies do it to keep their business running.

You can't make a livelihood out of shelling out free content, no matter what you'd like to think. Donations are never, ever a reliable source of income. Each of those people 'creating games because of a love for the games' are doing so of their own time. Chances are, they have jobs separate from this wonderful hobby.

How a company conducts business is one thing, but don't ever squander the professional efforts of the devs of today's greatest games. You're throwing developers into the same lot as publishers, which is not the way it works at all.

*Deep breath* Sorry for that. Just felt that there's a major issue with people (not you specifically) trying to make sense of a system they don't understand.

+1 internets to you sir.

[SalsaDMA]

Severyx wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Severyx wrote...

So, let me get this straight...

You'd love to sit in an office and spend hours upon hours modeling, adding textures, implementing mechanics, running data simulations to balance itty bits, and doing it all over again for the purposes of QA for free?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

That's an interesting statement, cause that's exactly what modding communities have done for years with various games.

Heck, you should take a look at project freespace if you want your eyes opened with just how much time and effort some people are willing to put into these kind of things for free.

Some people and companies create games because of a love for the games. Some do it because of a love for the money.

EA seems the latter to me, and the degraded quality is starting to show for it.

Correction: Some people and communities create games because of a love for the games. Companies do it to keep their business running.

You can't make a livelihood out of shelling out free content, no matter what you'd like to think. Donations are never, ever a reliable source of income. Each of those people 'creating games because of a love for the games' are doing so of their own time. Chances are, they have jobs separate from this wonderful hobby.

How a company conducts business is one thing, but don't ever squander the professional efforts of the devs of today's greatest games. You're throwing developers into the same lot as publishers, which is not the way it works at all.

*Deep breath* Sorry for that. Just felt that there's a major issue with people (not you specifically) trying to make sense of a system they don't understand.

correction: There's a difference between earning money on doing what you love, and by exploiting a product for every penny you can squeeze out of it.

EA (and certain other companies) are the exploiters. They're not in it for the game, but the money.

Ironically, EA started out as a company that viewed gaming as an artform and was genuinly trying to go somewhere with it. Now-a-days stockholder-syndrome have taken over and it's all about getting as much profit for as little investment as possible.

You may rant all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that there are different ways of doing business. One way is to respect your customer and the product you are trying to sell them (regardless of wether it is a physical product or a service product), the other way is to only respect the money you think you can earn by exploiting both the product and customer. The latter is what EA have turned to, after having started out as the former in their initial years as a company.

You DO realize that in the world of business between certain companies, entire projects gets canned if the forecasted profit is not 'big enough'? Doesn't matter if they believe a project would be profittable. If it isn't forecasted to be profittable 'enough' (and this variable can vary alot between companies) a project gets canned simply because it's not 'where the big money are'.

Respect for the product and customer would have ensured these projects being produced, while lack of respect for either and purely for the dollar means they get canned.

[furryrage59]

FluffyScarf wrote...

Bethesduh defence force exists here?

Wow, you're still crying about your crappy console.

You need a life bro.

[wolfsite]

Rotkaepchen wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

If you want to blame someone for DLC and pricing blame the consumer.  The consumer has shown that this method of providing content is viable for companies to generate revenue.  Also not buying the game doesn't tell the company DLC doesn't work as sales figures for DLC are compared to the number of total units of the original item sold, so if they have a high turn around on the original item but very low DLC then they get the message that the DLC didn't work.

Nice try wolfsite, attempting to prove that boycotting the main game wouldn't say anything about the acceptance of the day 1 DLC.

But not buying the main game might show BW that they pi** us off by castrating the main game for the extra money.

Normally low game sales tell the company that something was wrong with the original product, however if the game has high DLC sales that will just tell them that the DLC structure is sound and doesn't need to change so low initial adoption combined with a high DLC profit won't alter how they change the DLC.

However if the initial game sells well but DLC doesn't then you have high initial sales but low DLC sales which tells the company that they need to change how DLC is handled.  You can't look at DLC sales by itself since only those who already purchased the game will purchase the DLC thus you need the sales of the original game for comparison.

[AkiKishi]

I'd rather just give them no money.

[its the beast]

Freakiq wrote...

 http://t3.gstatic.co...XPmW4fKrCwiGD0w

THIS!! and i think the OP has been watching a little to much of this 
 

[Amikae]

I've watched that only once, but I am not a fan of this guy.

It's just that with all the controversy lately, I took a good look at the situation and where things are going and I saw this. Back in the days when you bought a game, you got the whole package. Today, you buy a game and then keep on paying for stuff. It's a sweet business, I don't doubt that. This way they can rush games with less content, sell it for full price, continue creating content and sell it again and again, rather than just make one huge game. I mean if ME3 really is 40 hours, that's barely acceptable for RPG standarts. As if that's not bad enough, every cosmetic thing, gadget, gun, skin or whatever they throw at us after the launch, comes at a price. How nice.

[Freakiq]

Amikae wrote...

I've watched that only once, but I am not a fan of this guy.

It's just that with all the controversy lately, I took a good look at the situation and where things are going and I saw this. Back in the days when you bought a game, you got the whole package. Today, you buy a game and then keep on paying for stuff. It's a sweet business, I don't doubt that. This way they can rush games with less content, sell it for full price, continue creating content and sell it again and again, rather than just make one huge game. I mean if ME3 really is 40 hours, that's barely acceptable for RPG standarts. As if that's not bad enough, every cosmetic thing, gadget, gun, skin or whatever they throw at us after the launch, comes at a price. How nice.

I'm sure they could triple the playtime if they skipped voice acting and turned down the graphics a few generations.

[GamerrangerX]

Amikae wrote...

I'm going to start with the fact, that I have cancelled my ME3 preorder. It was the only thing I could do to show BioWare, that I disagree with what they did on the 'From Ashes' DLC. I am not against paid DLC, especially such as the 'From Ashes', 'Shadow Broker', 'Kasumi' and 'Overlord'. If 'From Ashes' was released post launch, I think it would have been ok. But that's not what I want to discuss.

'From Ashes' and what they did with is something every gamer out there should be concerned, but I think what's more important is the situation with cosmetic DLC's. Stuff like guns, armors and skins, or even the Genesis DLC. Right now Alternate Appearance Pack 1 and 2 + Firepower Pack + Aegis Pack + Equalizer Pack + Genesis = 1120 MS Points = about 15$ = 1/4 the price of Mass Effect 3. For 15 $ you get an interactive comic, 6 skins and a few guns/armors. What?

Every cosmetic DLC out there should be FREE. It adds polish to the game, nothing more. Nothing can justify such paid DLC's. It's something companies should do to please their customers. Let's be reasonable. 15$ for 6 skins, a 15 minute interactive comic, that's just a small port from the PS3 and a few items. Not a character, not a new planet. 15$ should equal about 10+ hours of solid content.

I know the BioWare Def Force will jump on me now. People will tell me, that it's cheap and no one cares about 15$. It's not about the 15$, it's about where things are going. Back in the days buying games was much more exciting because we knew, that what we bought was the final work of the said dev. Even if the game flopped, we knew that they gave their best and we got the whole package. Right now, you buy Mass Effect 2 or 3, and the excitement is hampered even before launch, because you know that there are bits and pieces missing. Mass Effect 2 was critisicized about the horrible itemization. And they showed us, that they can adress it by creating additional items and skins... but not for free.

Where do we go from here? In what state are games going to be sold 5 years from now? Is this really how we want things to go down? Are we really ok with this? Having to pay 7$ for Arrival is fine, having to pay 2 $ for a sniper rifle is NOT. 

BLABLABALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBALBAL

[Amikae]

Freakiq wrote...

Amikae wrote...

I've watched that only once, but I am not a fan of this guy.

It's just that with all the controversy lately, I took a good look at the situation and where things are going and I saw this. Back in the days when you bought a game, you got the whole package. Today, you buy a game and then keep on paying for stuff. It's a sweet business, I don't doubt that. This way they can rush games with less content, sell it for full price, continue creating content and sell it again and again, rather than just make one huge game. I mean if ME3 really is 40 hours, that's barely acceptable for RPG standarts. As if that's not bad enough, every cosmetic thing, gadget, gun, skin or whatever they throw at us after the launch, comes at a price. How nice.

I'm sure they could triple the playtime if they skipped voice acting and turned down the graphics a few generations.

Graphics are horrible and VO are part of RPGs for the last 10 years. So that's not a valid argument.

Modifié par Amikae, 26 février 2012 - 04:56 .

[Mclouvins]

Amikae wrote...

I've watched that only once, but I am not a fan of this guy.

It's just that with all the controversy lately, I took a good look at the situation and where things are going and I saw this. Back in the days when you bought a game, you got the whole package. Today, you buy a game and then keep on paying for stuff. It's a sweet business, I don't doubt that. This way they can rush games with less content, sell it for full price, continue creating content and sell it again and again, rather than just make one huge game. I mean if ME3 really is 40 hours, that's barely acceptable for RPG standarts. As if that's not bad enough, every cosmetic thing, gadget, gun, skin or whatever they throw at us after the launch, comes at a price. How nice.

Forty hours is pretty good, it's not Sandbox rpg length but it's longer than most story-driven rpgs. Honestly if you look at a lot of achievement tracking and stuff like that extending it could be a bad idea. For a lot of people money isn't really the limiting factor in terms of gaming, it's time. CNN had an article a few years back about how only 10% of people finished Red Dead Redemption, not an rpg I know but it's close enough.