434 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockworm503]

I find it kinda strange that someone who quit is still so hell bent on defending them. I was miserable at my old job but gosh was it a great place to work LOL.
And also the comparisons to movies like a 2 hour action flick can possibly be compared to a 20+ hour long interactive adventure.
no disrespect intended.

[Jestina]

It just reinforces that they follow EA's policy of finding new ways to rip people off. I'm pretty much done with Bioware. I knew DA2 would be a disaster and didn't buy it, till it hit the bargain bin...and I knew ME3 would fail due to multi-player. I detest DLC and always will. DLC is mostly just content that was ripped from the game so they can sell it later to milk more money from players.

[Morroian]

Addai67 wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...
What is it about any of that, that makes it "iffy"? The alternative is to not have any hooks on disc and make DLC characters either completely separate, with as few interactions with base game characters as possible, or require way more work in order to cram the character into existing content... somehow.

Make a complete game or don't.

Example Fallout New Vegas.  It had hooks for DLC built in, but those DLC added whole new areas, enlarging the story rather than completing it and more than giving us our money's worth.  Sebastian is ripped out of DA2, and the story... ok, the story still doesn't make a lot of sense, but with his content it at least is more coherent than without it.  

Disagree, he's entirely superfluous and the game would be fine without him. Regardless he was available for free if you really have to be a completionist. Like I've said before Jarvik is far more problematic for me.

[Joy Divison]

Ninja-Stan - however it is worded, presented, or marketed, any day 1 DLC with content that seems to be in some way fundamental to the base game is going to look shady.

[slimgrin]

Morroian wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...
What is it about any of that, that makes it "iffy"? The alternative is to not have any hooks on disc and make DLC characters either completely separate, with as few interactions with base game characters as possible, or require way more work in order to cram the character into existing content... somehow.

Make a complete game or don't.

Example Fallout New Vegas.  It had hooks for DLC built in, but those DLC added whole new areas, enlarging the story rather than completing it and more than giving us our money's worth.  Sebastian is ripped out of DA2, and the story... ok, the story still doesn't make a lot of sense, but with his content it at least is more coherent than without it.  

Disagree, he's entirely superfluous and the game would be fine without him. Regardless he was available for free if you really have to be a completionist. Like I've said before Jarvik is far more problematic for me.

Making Javik paid for DLC was a monumental slap in the face to players who cared about Mass Effect lore.

ME1: The Protheans, shrouded in mystery, are at the heart of it all.

ME2: No wait, they're actually bug people.

ME3: Pay up and finally meet one!

[Addai]

Morroian wrote...

Disagree, he's entirely superfluous and the game would be fine without him. Regardless he was available for free if you really have to be a completionist. Like I've said before Jarvik is far more problematic for me.

Leliana's quests... the conversations with what'shername the dippy cleric... the juxtaposition of his role vs. Anders in the pink poop bomb scene... the intention to have an expansion based on a Crusade which he mentions.

In a game that was already such a ripoff, putting that content behind a paywall is sleazy business practice.

[Fast Jimmy]

Also, to the argument that Day One DLC is not finished, there could be a very good reason for this.

The developer knew it was going to be Day One DLC... and knew they could get away with working on other things instead of finishing that content.

In terms of Javik and From Ashes, if one of the earlier leaks from November can be believed, Javik was planned as the Catalyst, obviously a pretty main plot point and which would have made him a required character. It wasn't until the ending was reworked (again, if the leaked scripts in their wonkiness can be believed) that Javik was changed to Day One DLC Companion material.

So if Javik was planned for months, probably roughly the same time as an ancillary character like, say, James Vega, then they knew they had half a dozen weeks after the core game went gold to finish his content. So why not focus on more important content?

Its a self-fulfilling prophecy. As soon as something gets the designation as "going to be DLC", then it drops to the bottom of the priority list. The content doesn't get complete because its Day One DLC. Its Day One DLC because its content isn't finished.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I don't mind paying more than the $60 for a base game. I don't buy too many games these days, so I save months in advance for one I really want. The difference between $100 and $60 is just a matter of planning to start saving earlier. I don't even mind the concept of DLC, although I never utilize it. But to put "hooks" on a disc, indicating that the content was planned, then to turn around and announce it as an incentive for those who shell out more cash or pony up their money early (since preorders almost always require a down payment in the gaming retail stores) for a game they haven't had a chance to hear honest peer review from colors the entire event in a morally gray light.

It nets Bioware more profits, but it hurts consumer confidence and brand image. Day One DLC. The title alone says it all. Pay more the first day for a better, more complete experience.Saying that you are giving the consumer the ability to choose when they play that content doesn't take into account that you are waving that flag of content the "regular" folk can't have right in the face of the general public. As I suggested earlier as well, Week 3 DLC would take a HUGE amount of the sting out of the entire series of events.

For pre-orders, maybe include a detailed book, like what we get with the Collector's Edition. Or even an online pass that gives you access to a DLC of your choice (you could coordinate it so that this could be Live or PSN certificates for console owners) so that you could still entice people in with the thought of DLC, but a vague DLC, one that has not been officially announced yet.

The cost that it is doing to the brand is taking its toll. One paid Day One DLC hurt a little. Numerous ones, at this point, are causing cumulative damage. And it is starting to add up, based on fan reaction growing with every one.

[RaggieRags]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The cost that it is doing to the brand is taking its toll. One paid Day One DLC hurt a little. Numerous ones, at this point, are causing cumulative damage. And it is starting to add up, based on fan reaction growing with every one.

In game terms: sure, you get the money, but is it worth the -5 rep hit each time?

Let me just add this to the discussion: The Witcher 2 is an RPG made by a small Polish developer. The game was very well received and it also sold well. There is no paid DLC. Instead they made an "enhanced edition", which added over 10GB of new content, including four hours of gameplay, thirty-six minutes of cinematics including a new intro and outro, and a host of fixes to gameplay and the interface. This was a free download for all game owners. So far they have released 15 DLC introducing new quests and features, and all of it is free.

All this from a small company that doesn't have the resources that Bioware has.

Modifié par RaggieRags, 17 août 2012 - 07:04 .

[DukeOfNukes]

DLC should be substantial, and designed as an experience outside the main game.

Look at the DLC out there that's been regarded as some of the best. You have Shivering Isles for Oblivion, which added on over 20 hours of content. The two expansions for GTA IV...which added hours on, and neither had to do with Niko Bellic. Broken Steel for Fallout 3, which, again, added hours of content that only changed the ending of the game. Secret Armory of General Knoxx for Borderlands, which added a humorous mini-campaign with no ties to the main campaign. Undead Nightmare, for Red Dead Redemption...which, again, was a humorous campaign taking place outside the main game. The only great DLC that really broke this trend was Lair of the Shadow Broker...which always seemed like content that should have been included in the game to me.

Javik was content cut from the game in order to make it DLC. There's no denying that...he was intended to be in the game, and at some point someone said "lets put him on the back burner, and sell him as DLC later." It was a conscious decision to do so...BioWare didn't get 90% of the way through development and then go "hey, you know what would be cool...if we had a Prothean companion!"

Henceforth, I shall call this the "IKEA Defense". Hey, it's missing a few screws, it's crooked, and it wobbles if you put any weight on it, but it's still standing!

[Lotion Soronarr]

The problem is that in most cases the developers focus on DLC and not the core product. The core product is lacking..rushed. Feels incomplete..

[zeypher]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The problem is that in most cases the developers focus on DLC and not the core product. The core product is lacking..rushed. Feels incomplete..

THIS!!!!!! Finally someone said it. Ive noticed this with last few bioware games. The DLC's are actually better than the main game. They put the innovation, creativity on DLC's but not in the main game. DA2's DLC's were better than the main game, even ME2's dlcs like lotsb etc had higher quality than most of me2 game missions. ME3 had javik who was more interesting than other squadmates etc.

I have no problem with dlc's but i hope in future i get to see some of that creativity in the main game, that quality in the main game.

[Ninja Stan]

Rockworm503 wrote...

I find it kinda strange that someone who quit is still so hell bent on defending them. I was miserable at my old job but gosh was it a great place to work LOL.

I left the job because I no longer cared for the job. The people, the company, and the games they make are still great.

And also the comparisons to movies like a 2 hour action flick can possibly be compared to a 20+ hour long interactive adventure.
no disrespect intended.

People use car analogies, burger joint analogies, even people's own job analogies. Movies are similar in that they are entertainment media products which have similar development processes. The interactivity is what makes videogames different, but if I was comparing videogames to videogames, it wouldn't be much of an analogy, would it?

[Ninja Stan]

slimgrin wrote...

Making Javik paid for DLC was a monumental slap in the face to players who cared about Mass Effect lore.

ME1: The Protheans, shrouded in mystery, are at the heart of it all.

ME2: No wait, they're actually bug people.

ME3: Pay up and finally meet one!

Making Javik paid for DLC was a way to encourage people to buy ME3 DLC. You only feel it's a "monumental slap in the face to players" because you were asked to (not forced to, not obligated to) pay for extra content that was being offered for sale. If players "cared about Mass Effect lore," don't you think they'd want that kind of extra content?

Yes, absolutely, BioWare could totally have designed ME3 to include Javik the character and his story and dialogues and things. Then again, they could totally have designed ME3 to not include multiplayer. They could also, theoretically, ahve designed ME3 to be an FPS or RTS. What they chose to do, however, is to have Javik as day 1 DLC. They did this not to "stick it to the fans." They did this to sell more DLC to interested players, plain and simple.

[Ninja Stan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Also, to the argument that Day One DLC is not finished, there could be a very good reason for this.

The developer knew it was going to be Day One DLC... and knew they could get away with working on other things instead of finishing that content.

In terms of Javik and From Ashes, if one of the earlier leaks from November can be believed, Javik was planned as the Catalyst, obviously a pretty main plot point and which would have made him a required character. It wasn't until the ending was reworked (again, if the leaked scripts in their wonkiness can be believed) that Javik was changed to Day One DLC Companion material.

Even with films, a script changes often during production. Usually, it's a small change, like a couple words here and there, but sometimes it's something larger, like entire scenes being cut or re-worked. Sometimes entire characters are cut. Sometimes this happens in a script rewrite, sometimes it happens during shooting, sometimes it doesn't happen untilt he editing room. A "script" is not a set-in-stone document that dictates what will appear in the end product.

Want to know just how no set-in-stone a script is? Read this article about script scenes that may have explained plot inconsistencies or plotholes or this one about deleted scenes that may have explained plot inconsistencies of plotholes. Similar things can happen in games, especially in games with bigger or longer stories, or more "cinematic" games such as ME3.

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 17 août 2012 - 09:19 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Stan,

Thanks for that link, it was a pretty interesting read.

I do understand that narrative changes and is almost mercurial during the creative process. But we would never see in a movie theater on the first day of release a "normal" cut of the film, and then for more money, a "Director's Cut" which would include these extra cut scenes in a theater right next to it. The customer outrage would be through the roof if they did.

Did you like the Avengers? I did. I thought it was a fantastic movie, blending different IPs and characters in an almost seamless way. In the comics, Wolverine was part of the Avengers.

Now, assuming Marvel/Disney licensing issues were resolved today, let's say that Wolverine COULD have been in the Avengers movie (Hugh Jackman or no, just throwing the character concept out there). There were able to have him in a few group scenes/conversations, but weren't able to get some of his battle/CG scenes, or his stand alone scenes completely filmed before the film was sent to the editing team for final cut.

What if, while the editing team was doing their magic, they brought back most of the production team and then filmed Wolverine's scenes, so he could be in the movie? Completed all of his CG work, completed all of his lines and story. And if it was finished in time, they could send his section of the film to the editing team to get ready by opening night.

Then, on opening night, you can buy a normal ticket to see the Avengers... or you could buy a ticket that is essentially 20% more expensive and see the Avengers with Wolverine in it?

Wolverine doesn't add much to the plot. He has a starting story being a drifter, wandering around some Canadian bar, before being picked up and recruited by Nick Fury. He has a few scenes with the group, where he makes appropriately funny/snarky offhand comments. And while his CG scenes in the battles are awesome, ultimately he has nothing to do with how the threat is eliminated (much like Hawkeye and Captain America and Thor do not, either).

Do you not envision the sheer volume of nerd rage if something like this happened? Fans would be foaming at the mouth, bad mouthing the studio, calling corporate greed and trying to milk the consumer for every dime they could. The studio could say "well, we hadn't had Wolverine's content completely finished when the movie was done with normal production, but we were able to squeeze this in while the rest of the team would have just been cooling their heels. We had plans for him to be in scenes from the start, that's why he was recorded with the group, but time was an issue. We just figured the fans would rather have him at a premium price rather than not at all."

Do you, as a movie fan, think many people would "buy" that excuse, even if it was true or mostly true? Or do you think Marvel Studio would have taken a huge hit in consumer confidence and had people start boycotting their films?

Since people are making comparisons to other industries, I figured I'd make the closest one I could.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Il Divo,

I hate picking apart your posts without quoting, but I'm only able to do this from my phone the past few days, so bear with me.

Fair enough. I've been in that boat before.

I WOULD gladly pay $100 for DAO. Because I think it was a quality game, it has tons f replayabilty and it's five year dev cycle shows. I wouldn't begrudge Bioware putting out DLC for it in addition to my $100 price if it wasn't released day one (although if they could take the lead that CDProject did and give all free DLC, that would be even sweeter).

And that's fair. I probably would do the same. But here's the real question: is it profitable? Because if not, we'll never see that happen and considering that very few games retails for greater than $60, we'd probably see more criticisms of "greed" than we do now.

Hence why I don't see the problems with the current model as you're stating it, since it gives you greater freedom in deciding what you want or don't want. If you think a day 1 dlc isn't worth your time, don't buy it and you get the base experience at $60. If you think it's critical or looks good, then pay $70-75. You're still better off than paying the $100 under your model, with no input on what you do or don't buy.

I don't like the concept of a writer, artist or developer thinking about how to custom make their art to scam more money out of people. I'd rather they focus on making a quality product, take all the time they need, keep their audience in mind first and foremost and then take that product to market. The fact that a new Crash Bandicoo game and DA:O are both released at the same price is completely UNcapitalistic. You can blame publishers like EA and retail chains like Gamestop, who are both seriously hurting right now. 

Again, "scam" is a loaded word. It's not our job to decide for a company how they choose to sell their product. It is our place to evaluate the product they release, all the circumstances around it, and decide if it seems worth the price.I can't tell Bioware how to sell their dlc any more than I can tell cinema that 3D should be base price, just because they claim it "enhances" the experience. If we don't think their offer is worth, we don't buy it, plan and simple.

What you are describing has no bearing on capitalism. Capitalism is built on private ownership. EA owns the product, hence they are doing as they wish with it.

If a game was priced for its cost to make and it's real value, game prices would be wildly fluctuating. Instead, they are all the exact same, with a variance of 5-10%.

Costs to make, sure. But again, "real value" is subjective. I've played $60 games that were expensive to make and worth less than the $10 I paid to see a movie. Games have no real value, beyond what consumers as a group are willing to pay.

Divo, you keep making comparisons to other markets, but no other market is like the VG industry except the movie industry. And both are in the toilet right now because of it. They both need variant pricing models to survive. Pricing a garbage movie-marketing video game and a GOTY title like DA:O anywhere NEAR the same price, that is not capitalism. It's idiocy.

At the end of the day, for all claims of artistry, every market is the same. DA:O was made by writers, or artists if you prefer. But DA:O was sold as a product. Like any other product, the company is going to make a call regarding price, what is part of the base package, etc.

And as I explained earlier, while you might not like the idea of the artist cutting up their work, no dlc released between all their last four products has proven critical to the experience. What Javik may have started as in ME3's script has no bearing on what they turned him into, a fun character who is unnecessary to the experience. Having played ME3 both with and without him, I can tell you he adds nothing critical.

There are games which should be $20. There are games which should be $100. If it costs that much more to make a game that should be priced at $100 because of dev time and resources, then CHARGE us for that right up front. Don't think of ways to manipulate people's emotions to get that much revenue out of us in the end. And don't force multiplayer in an attempt to have people log on and engage in pointless microtransactions. That, too, is cheap and underhanded.

I addressed this above. You're actually asking for less freedom (and more expense) via this approach. If it came down to it, you'd pay $100 for DA:O, up front. But if given the opportunity to pay $60 base game, then optional $7-10 for Warden's Keep day 1 dlc, you'd consider that a scam? Again, keep in mind this isn't just about what you or I want. If it's not a profitable business model, your approach would never work. Meaning the company is between a rock and a hard place.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 août 2012 - 02:09 .

[Whatever42]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Stan,

Thanks for that link, it was a pretty interesting read.

I do understand that narrative changes and is almost mercurial during the creative process. But we would never see in a movie theater on the first day of release a "normal" cut of the film, and then for more money, a "Director's Cut" which would include these extra cut scenes in a theater right next to it. The customer outrage would be through the roof if they did.

Did you like the Avengers? I did. I thought it was a fantastic movie, blending different IPs and characters in an almost seamless way. In the comics, Wolverine was part of the Avengers.

Now, assuming Marvel/Disney licensing issues were resolved today, let's say that Wolverine COULD have been in the Avengers movie (Hugh Jackman or no, just throwing the character concept out there). There were able to have him in a few group scenes/conversations, but weren't able to get some of his battle/CG scenes, or his stand alone scenes completely filmed before the film was sent to the editing team for final cut.

What if, while the editing team was doing their magic, they brought back most of the production team and then filmed Wolverine's scenes, so he could be in the movie? Completed all of his CG work, completed all of his lines and story. And if it was finished in time, they could send his section of the film to the editing team to get ready by opening night.

Then, on opening night, you can buy a normal ticket to see the Avengers... or you could buy a ticket that is essentially 20% more expensive and see the Avengers with Wolverine in it?

Wolverine doesn't add much to the plot. He has a starting story being a drifter, wandering around some Canadian bar, before being picked up and recruited by Nick Fury. He has a few scenes with the group, where he makes appropriately funny/snarky offhand comments. And while his CG scenes in the battles are awesome, ultimately he has nothing to do with how the threat is eliminated (much like Hawkeye and Captain America and Thor do not, either).

Do you not envision the sheer volume of nerd rage if something like this happened? Fans would be foaming at the mouth, bad mouthing the studio, calling corporate greed and trying to milk the consumer for every dime they could. The studio could say "well, we hadn't had Wolverine's content completely finished when the movie was done with normal production, but we were able to squeeze this in while the rest of the team would have just been cooling their heels. We had plans for him to be in scenes from the start, that's why he was recorded with the group, but time was an issue. We just figured the fans would rather have him at a premium price rather than not at all."

Do you, as a movie fan, think many people would "buy" that excuse, even if it was true or mostly true? Or do you think Marvel Studio would have taken a huge hit in consumer confidence and had people start boycotting their films?

Since people are making comparisons to other industries, I figured I'd make the closest one I could.

Except that the movie studios do do this to us. 

Want to buy the LotR blu rays? Here you go.

Oh, now we're selling the extended cuts, with more scenes, for just a bit more. And it has commentary! Interested? Ok, here you go.

We won't even discuss Star Wars.

What they do is release a movie. Then re-release it with more and better content. You then have the options to stay with your base content or see the movie again. Or buy a whole new set of movies. 

[Il Divo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Except that the movie studios do do this to us. 

Want to buy the LotR blu rays? Here you go.

Oh, now we're selling the extended cuts, with more scenes, for just a bit more. And it has commentary! Interested? Ok, here you go.

We won't even discuss Star Wars.

What they do is release a movie. Then re-release it with more and better content. You then have the options to stay with your base content or see the movie again. Or buy a whole new set of movies. 

I think I even heard something about them wanting to re-release the Avengers in theaters with an additional 30 minutes content, which is getting pretty close to what Jimmy's describing.

[Whatever42]

slimgrin wrote...

Making Javik paid for DLC was a monumental slap in the face to players who cared about Mass Effect lore.

ME1: The Protheans, shrouded in mystery, are at the heart of it all.

ME2: No wait, they're actually bug people.

ME3: Pay up and finally meet one!

You're actually paying for a different experience. Without Javik, the Protheans stay shrouded in mystery. With him, you get insight into the culture, stripping away the mystery.

But this is a vaid argument here, in my opinion. In ME2, Kasumi and Zaeed, as cool as they are, really were optional. If those were paid day 1 DLC, then fine. Their content was outside the main concepts of the game. Javik provided core background, changing your perception of the lore in the game, despite the character being optional.

Now its not completely unheard of to pay to see content that changes the tone of the story. Paying for director's cuts of movies often have you paying for more story details or even a different ending.  I suppose if you thought you were being saddled with a deliberately inferior story, however, so they could sell you a better one later then I understand the concern.

Personally, I don't think the exclusion of Javik makes the story inferior - just different - but I can see where you're coming from. And it certainly could be a slippery slope.

[Fast Jimmy]

Whatever<number string>,

The sale of DVD extras is entirely different that what I described. My problem is with Day One DLC. The DLC model in concept is not that much different than the expansion model concept that we've seen in the past, just with grossly over-inflated prices. But Day One DLC is exactly like I described - having one theater on opening night showing a base movie, then having another movie theater show extra content/scenes. Not a more comfortable experience, like with a Director's Hall, and not a cosmetic difference in the movie, like 3-D, but actual extra content, characters and scenes.

Even something along the lines of having an Avengers cut with extra scenes weeks after the movie came out is not the same - it is not Day One, which just smacks of consumer manipulation. And, if you will note, they did not release this extended cut for the Avengers in theaters. Could it have to do with the cries of greed and worries of fan backlash? I would think it was a major factor.

[termokanden]

Jestina wrote...

It just reinforces that they follow EA's policy of finding new ways to rip people off. I'm pretty much done with Bioware. I knew DA2 would be a disaster and didn't buy it, till it hit the bargain bin...and I knew ME3 would fail due to multi-player. I detest DLC and always will. DLC is mostly just content that was ripped from the game so they can sell it later to milk more money from players.

I don't hate DLC at all. And as Addai pointed out, there are good examples of games where DLC with real value was added later rather than just ripping a chunk out of the main game and selling it separately ("batteries not included").

The good kind of DLC I like. Day 1 DLC I only tolerate. I just count the game's price as being that much higher and ask myself if I want to pay that much.

It's still microtransaction schemes that worry me the most.

[Morroian]

RaggieRags wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The cost that it is doing to the brand is taking its toll. One paid Day One DLC hurt a little. Numerous ones, at this point, are causing cumulative damage. And it is starting to add up, based on fan reaction growing with every one.

In game terms: sure, you get the money, but is it worth the -5 rep hit each time?

Let me just add this to the discussion: The Witcher 2 is an RPG made by a small Polish developer. The game was very well received and it also sold well. There is no paid DLC. Instead they made an "enhanced edition", which added over 10GB of new content, including four hours of gameplay, thirty-six minutes of cinematics including a new intro and outro, and a host of fixes to gameplay and the interface. This was a free download for all game owners. So far they have released 15 DLC introducing new quests and features, and all of it is free.

All this from a small company that doesn't have the resources that Bioware has.

That DLC was released when the console edition of the game was released so is effectively paid for by console sales. Prior to that the free content released for it was minor. And they aren't small.

Modifié par Morroian, 17 août 2012 - 10:24 .

[Gatt9]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Also, to the argument that Day One DLC is not finished, there could be a very good reason for this.

The developer knew it was going to be Day One DLC... and knew they could get away with working on other things instead of finishing that content.

In terms of Javik and From Ashes, if one of the earlier leaks from November can be believed, Javik was planned as the Catalyst, obviously a pretty main plot point and which would have made him a required character. It wasn't until the ending was reworked (again, if the leaked scripts in their wonkiness can be believed) that Javik was changed to Day One DLC Companion material.

Even with films, a script changes often during production. Usually, it's a small change, like a couple words here and there, but sometimes it's something larger, like entire scenes being cut or re-worked. Sometimes entire characters are cut. Sometimes this happens in a script rewrite, sometimes it happens during shooting, sometimes it doesn't happen untilt he editing room. A "script" is not a set-in-stone document that dictates what will appear in the end product.

Want to know just how no set-in-stone a script is? Read this article about script scenes that may have explained plot inconsistencies or plotholes or this one about deleted scenes that may have explained plot inconsistencies of plotholes. Similar things can happen in games, especially in games with bigger or longer stories, or more "cinematic" games such as ME3.

The difference is,  the movie theater doesn't sell you a ticket for the movie,  then have the ticket taker stop you and ask you for $10 more to be allowed into a theater that has that material reinserted.

ME3 OTOH asked you at the register to pay $10 to get a component of the game that can be easily regarded as necessary given how instrumental Protheans are to the storyline.

Except that the movie studios do do this to us.

Want to buy the LotR blu rays? Here you go.

Oh, now we're selling the extended cuts, with more scenes, for just a bit more. And it has commentary! Interested? Ok, here you go.

We won't even discuss Star Wars.

What they do is release a movie. Then re-release it with more and better content. You then have the options to stay with your base content or see the movie again. Or buy a whole new set of movies.

While this does happen quite frequently (Harry Potter),  neither of those examples illustrate it.

For both the DVD and BR releases of LotR's,  consumers were told well in advance that the extended editions were coming.  In both cases,  I passed on the regular editions because I knew before they even released when the extended editions would release.

With Star Wars,  there's never been a double dip on either DVD or BR to my knowledge.  In both cases,  a definitive version was released.  I believe on DVD due to fan request unspecial editions were eventually released,  but I wouldn't call that a double dip since it was pretty much demanded by consumers.

Regardless,  it's still not comparable.  Because it's very rare for a movie to have significant left over material like LotR,  generally it's a couple of minutes very few people would even notice.  There's never been a DVD/BR release that adds in a relatively major character to the movie (Mass Effect 3) or a DVD/BR release that has numerous 30 second blank screens to tell you a scene was cut and coerce you into paying more (Dead Space 2).

Modifié par Gatt9, 18 août 2012 - 01:21 .

[Addai]

Morroian wrote...
That DLC was released when the console edition of the game was released so is effectively paid for by console sales. Prior to that the free content released for it was minor. And they aren't small.

Wow, you're really deep into this rationalization thing.

[Elhanan]

Gatt9 wrote...

The difference is,  the movie theater doesn't sell you a ticket for the movie,  then have the ticket taker stop you and ask you for $10 more to be allowed into a theater that has that material reinserted.

ME3 OTOH asked you at the register to pay $10 to get a component of the game that can be easily regarded as necessary given how instrumental Protheans are to the storyline....

But theaters may actually do this, too; one area and price for regular fare, and another for 3D effects. And neither the FX or DLC is essential to the story, I believe.