319 réponses à ce sujet

[Zmidponk]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

It has nothing to do with video games. If you cannot come up with one relating to the correct industry then as far as I am concerned it invalidated itself because you could not come up with one within the correct industry (video games).

So to come up with an analogy that illustrates an industry-wide problem, I've to come up with an analogy within that industry?

Do you actually get what an 'analogy' is?

[Mylia Stenetch]

Zmidponk wrote...
EDIT:Also, you seem to miss that a 'director's cut' is a complete product.  This potential ending DLC is not - it's an addon to a product that gives a fixed ending to that product.  That, in and of itself, would show that they're charging extra for making the product the way it supposed to be in the first place.

The game was a complete product, it did not live up to expectatoins, but complete. DLC is a complete product which can be tacked on to extend lifetimes in games. Also unless you are an employee of Bioware you do not know the product planning for this. As I do not.

[Aargh12]

Zmidponk wrote...
Name a film where the ending was changed from a cocked up mess to something good.  Then your argument might have merit.

I Am Legend had teh ending changed I believe, mostly because of PG13 rating and whatnot.

[kalle90]

My issue with DLC is the microtransaction system they have. Like someone said I rather have one big bulky expansion than a million files of guns, outfits, short seperate missions etc. Especially when it cumulates into "Get 3 Dead Space weapons" vs "Get Mass Effect 2 story DLC" which makes no sense to me.

So I prefer GOTY versions. Fable 2 and Assassin's Creed are perhaps the best because the previously downloadable content is slapped on the disc, you don't even notice there's DLC included. At worst games like Borderlands and Resident Evil 5 only have a code with what I can download the content, which to me isn't any better than the original issue.

I buy enough few games to actually wish that games cost $100 but they included everything.

However seeing how atleast next Xbox and PS4 are pushing digital distribution I assume this will only get worse. Every game will be like that Fable 2 deal back when you could buy it in 4 parts. "So, you paid $15 too bad that only gets you 1/4th of the game". What am I going to do with 1/4th of a game? I could understand it in sports or fighting games but not in adventure. Add the "Play Amalur to unlock stuff in ME3", 5 different pre-order bonuses in different stores and this turns into total chaos.

[Zmidponk]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

First off your opininion on ending is your opinion so we can have endings we do not like and disagree.  Second how do you it is going to magically good. Your speculation has no merit.

Well, if you read my analogy, you would know it's going to be better because the studio announced they were going to fix it.

For an example Kingdom of Heaven the theatrical version was a steaming pile of crap. I voiced my opinion on it and did not buy it on DVD/Blu-Ray till I found the director's cut which was much better.

So, in other words, you got a complete product which you did not have to pay an extra fee to get the fixed portions of.  So how is that related to my analogy?

'Director's cuts' or 'special editions' which include additional scenes inserted in films would be more analogous to paid DLC in games that are true additions or expansions to the core game.

[harrier25699]

All this talk of pie is making me hungry.

[Dragoonlordz]

Zmidponk wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

It has nothing to do with video games. If you cannot come up with one relating to the correct industry then as far as I am concerned it invalidated itself because you could not come up with one within the correct industry (video games).

So to come up with an analogy that illustrates an industry-wide problem, I've to come up with an analogy within that industry?

Do you actually get what an 'analogy' is?

Why would I come up with one, I did not consider DLC to be a problem in the first place, it is giving people what they are willing and wanting to buy. Additional content that extends the length of the games they enjoy. Instead of using obscure references and analogies just stick to saying what you want and do not want.

[Zmidponk]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

The game was a complete product, it did not live up to expectatoins, but complete. DLC is a complete product which can be tacked on to extend lifetimes in games. Also unless you are an employee of Bioware you do not know the product planning for this. As I do not.

DLC is NOT a complete product, or else you could buy the DLC only and play that.  DLC is an addon to a product, by it's very nature.

[Mylia Stenetch]

Zmidponk wrote...

Well, if you read my analogy, you would know it's going to be better because the studio announced they were going to fix it.

Well with your "analogy" that is how it works in real life for movie executives. You know if you bought the Watchmen Director's Cut there was an advertisement for Watchmen: Ultimate Cut everything you want in it! You know what people did brought their copy back and waited till the ultimate came out.

Also they annouced clarification that does not mean fully it is a "fix". What I would want for a fix could be different than yours.

[Zmidponk]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Why would I come up with one, I did not consider DLC to be a problem in the first place, it is giving people what they are willing and wanting to buy. Additional content that extends the length of the games they enjoy. Instead of using obscure references and analogies just stick to saying what you want and do not want.

I'm not asking you to come up with an analogy, I'm asking how my analogy is invalid, and I find your given reason utterly nonsensical.

Please stop trying to sidestep my point.  It's obvious and embarrasing (for you, that is).

[Zmidponk]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Well with your "analogy" that is how it works in real life for movie executives. You know if you bought the Watchmen Director's Cut there was an advertisement for Watchmen: Ultimate Cut everything you want in it! You know what people did brought their copy back and waited till the ultimate came out.

So, again, those people got a complete product they did not have to pay an extra fee to get the fixed portions of.  I am still failing to see how that relates to my analogy.

[Mylia Stenetch]

Zmidponk wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Well with your "analogy" that is how it works in real life for movie executives. You know if you bought the Watchmen Director's Cut there was an advertisement for Watchmen: Ultimate Cut everything you want in it! You know what people did brought their copy back and waited till the ultimate came out.

So, again, those people got a complete product they did not have to pay an extra fee to get the fixed portions of.  I am still failing to see how that relates to my analogy.

Cause your analogy does not eqaute to what you want it to. Movie companies do not try and sell you alternative endings via a "bonus" package (yet). The best analogy is the gaming sector cause they are leading the digital distribution era.

[Zmidponk]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Cause your analogy does not eqaute to what you want it to. Movie companies do not try and sell you alternative endings via a "bonus" package (yet).

Correct, they don't.  Which is precisely why I'm asking what the reaction would be if they sold a fix to an extremely bad ending in a film in the same way that Bioware might very well end up selling a fixed ending for ME3.

[RyuujinZERO]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Cause your analogy does not eqaute to what you want it to. Movie companies do not try and sell you alternative endings via a "bonus" package (yet).

Sure they do... "Directors cut", I am Legend being especially notable, given it has an "alternate ending" which is true to the novel (And better), as opposed to the official movie ending which tested better with audiences which is happy flowers and sunshine but so out-of-character that it actually misses the point of why the movie is even NAMED "I am legend" - the "basic version" of the movie  has no ending punchline

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 02 avril 2012 - 03:25 .

[Cainne Chapel]

My responses never get responded too.... I'm a sad Prime...

Anyway, Kalle90 you have the right idea, wait for a the game of the year edition that will have everything in it DLC and otherwise for a tremendous discount.

I however only buy games usually upon release, thus I'll buy DLC that interests me (key word here, I dont buy everything)

But as other posters have said, companies have found DLC is a nice little cash cow to them, now is it to say MOST people buy DLC? I'd expect they dont, but enough do where its a profitable side model to 1) get more profit and 2)extend the life of the game for me the consumer at my discretion

[Mylia Stenetch]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Cause your analogy does not eqaute to what you want it to. Movie companies do not try and sell you alternative endings via a "bonus" package (yet).

Sure they do... "Directors cut", I am Legend being especially notable, given it has an "alternate ending" which is true to the novel (And better), as opposed to the official movie ending which tested better with audiences which is happy flowers and sunshine but so out-of-character that it actually misses the point of why the movie is even NAMED "I am legend"

I said that above, if you read my posts and told it was nothing. (Aka LoTR, Watchment, Kingdom of Heaven, Blade Runner). The person refuted it. 

[Dragoonlordz]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

My responses never get responded too.... I'm a sad Prime...

Anyway, Kalle90 you have the right idea, wait for a the game of the year edition that will have everything in it DLC and otherwise for a tremendous discount.

I however only buy games usually upon release, thus I'll buy DLC that interests me (key word here, I dont buy everything)

But as other posters have said, companies have found DLC is a nice little cash cow to them, now is it to say MOST people buy DLC? I'd expect they dont, but enough do where its a profitable side model to 1) get more profit and 2)extend the life of the game for me the consumer at my discretion

Don't worry I shall respond to you.

I agree with you. Hows that? 

[Dragoonlordz]

Zmidponk wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Cause your analogy does not eqaute to what you want it to. Movie companies do not try and sell you alternative endings via a "bonus" package (yet).

Correct, they don't.  Which is precisely why I'm asking what the reaction would be if they sold a fix to an extremely bad ending in a film in the same way that Bioware might very well end up selling a fixed ending for ME3.

Your talk about films is still pointless. Films do not sell fixes and neither is Bioware. It has no relevance.

Games do sell extra additional content that "enhances" the product not "fixes". Fixes are free and they are called patches. This is not a fix issue, it is an enhance issue. DLC enchances (at cost), patches fix (for free). You trying to phrase it as fix in inaccurate and make no mistake I know exactly why you chose that word. There is an ending already present in the game, this DLC which "enchances" that ending should be paid for and it is not a patch and it is not a fix.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 avril 2012 - 03:32 .

[Cainne Chapel]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

My responses never get responded too.... I'm a sad Prime...

Anyway, Kalle90 you have the right idea, wait for a the game of the year edition that will have everything in it DLC and otherwise for a tremendous discount.

I however only buy games usually upon release, thus I'll buy DLC that interests me (key word here, I dont buy everything)

But as other posters have said, companies have found DLC is a nice little cash cow to them, now is it to say MOST people buy DLC? I'd expect they dont, but enough do where its a profitable side model to 1) get more profit and 2)extend the life of the game for me the consumer at my discretion

Don't worry I shall respond to you.

I agree with you. Hows that? 

My prime doesn't like people that can transmute metal... it scares him (your avatar)

But thank you

[Mylia Stenetch]

Cainne Chapel wrote...
Still dont get the "good old days" arguments.

Games still had tons of issues in the good old days too.  and I dont know about the rest of you i STILL get complete games now as I did then.

So that argument...is...well... silly

Yeah I remember back in the day playing on my NES, and having buggy issues come up and the only way to fix them was blow into the cartridge. Or the abissmal ending to Mario 2 (US ed) where they were truly lazy and gave you an entirely different game.

Also remember Adventrues to Link? Where it was pretty much designed for you to buy the players guide to play it? Yeah old schools games are amazing through rose-tinted glasses.

[mad825]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

The game was a complete product, it did not live up to expectatoins, but complete.

So, may I ask where is this evidence? Or is it some baseless assertion that you felt compelled to say?

The very nature of a "complete product" is that all development costs when into the game that was sold. The From Ashes DLC is an example of this predicament, you can have the extra character in-game by tweaking a file and the fact they promoted the extra character with the DLC adds to show that it was not complete.

Also, how do we not  know what they've withheld content for future DLC?

Modifié par mad825, 02 avril 2012 - 03:42 .

[Cainne Chapel]

mad825 wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

The game was a complete product, it did not live up to expectatoins, but complete.

So, may I ask where is this evidence?

The very nature of a "complete product" is that all development costs when into the game that was sold. The From Ashes DLC is an example of this predicament, you can have the extra character in-game by tweaking a file and the fact they promoted the extra character with the DLC adds to show that it was not complete.

Also, how do we not  know what they've withheld for future DLC?

well if you wanna go further down that route, why even have ME2 and 3? they should of all just been included in ME1 right?

Where is the evidence that the game ISN'T complete? I can still play and beat it without outside help or purchasing anything extra, I can still enjoy a 20+hour story without Javik.

As for Javik he was always planned as a bonus N7 edition character, so I figured if you DiDN'T get the N7 edition, an extra fee would be needed.  AFter all why should everyone get for free what I paid +$20 for as a package?

as for witholding future DLC... do you also believe The Arrival, Overlord and LOTSB was withheld from ME2? or Bring down the Sky was withheld from ME1?

Why all the conspiracy theories over a freaking game?

[Zmidponk]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Your talk about films is still pointless. Films do not sell fixes and neither is Bioware. It has no relevance.

Which is where that 'analogy' thing comes in.

Games do sell extra additional content that "enhances" the product not "fixes". Fixes are free and they are called patches. This is not a fix issue, it is an enhance issue. DLC enchances (at cost), patches fix (for free). You trying to phrase it as fix in inaccurate. There is an ending already present in the game, this DLC which "enchances" that ending should be paid for and it is not a patch and it is not a fix.

But if a patch 'enhances' a part of the game by making it better, such as the 'patch' that fixed DA:O by making daggers for Rogues have their damage based on Dexterity rather than Strength, surely it should be a 'DLC' then?  If the 'patch' that rebalanced multiplayer in ME3 thereby 'enhanced' it, it should be a 'DLC' then, surely?  Does this mean the free batsuit 'DLC' for Batman Arkham City is actually a 'patch'?  Is the forthcoming 2.0 'patch' for the Witcher 2 actually a 'DLC' because it adds the Arena mode, even though it's going to be free?

The simple fact is that the only thing that separates a DLC from a patch is that a DLC is called a DLC and is usually (but not always) paid for, and a patch is called a patch and usually isn't.  This is partially why it is an industry-wide problem that sometimes this fact is abused to have fixes be called 'DLC' and be charged for.

[Mylia Stenetch]

mad825 wrote...
So, may I ask where is this evidence?

The very nature of a "complete product" is that all development costs when into the game that was sold. The From Ashes DLC is an example of this predicament, you can have the extra character in-game by tweaking a file and the fact they promoted the extra character with the DLC adds to show that it was not complete.

 

The game delivered into a product that the sold you.  What we have to go on is what the developers said, if you do not want to believe them that is your peroggitive. Also "all development costs" do you know what the development costs were? Do you know the timeline for the game and how it's cycle went? They could had cut stuff out to ship out a complete product of what was done and expand on it afterwards. Look at any MMO out know if you want to think of that, they sell you a complete product that usually has a patch/add-on which expands it more in 1-2 months.

Also, how do we not  know what they've withheld content for future DLC?

 

As I said before in this thread I do not, know it is speculation on everyone's behest. Just cause Javik's model is in there, means not much to me. I know the Force Unleashed II had a lot of dlc on the disc but people I know never said the game was not a complete product.

[IcyVeins]

Edit: Post removed.

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 02 avril 2012 - 04:02 .