434 réponses à ce sujet

[naughty99]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

I do feel that both DA2 and ME3 were balanced/structured round the presence of the dlc-only characters leaving me with an "incomplete" version.

You really felt Sebastian was essential for DA2? There were two other rogue companions and the content was tiny, reportedly 1-2 hours at most. This DLC did not look interesting to me at all.

The more quests and content, the better, of course, but my playthrough of the entire game with no DLC lasted well over 100 hours and it never felt like I was missing a superfluous companion character.

Modifié par naughty99, 19 août 2012 - 11:49 .

[Chromie]

naughty99 wrote...
You really felt Sebastian was essential for DA2?

Can you say the same for Jhavik? 

[Il Divo]

Skelter192 wrote...

Can you say the same for Jhavik? 

Just about. Javik, like most Bioware characters, is awesome. But he still has that lack of plot relevancy, which again, most Bioware characters possess, meaning that it's incredibly easy to pull him out of the story without changing a thing. Whatever Javik started as in the leaked script changed dramatically. In the final incarnation, he's a soldier whose role doesn't go beyond giving Shepard renegade advice in fighting the Reapers, or verbal sparring with Liara. But if you'd never heard of the From Ashes dlc, you wouldn't even know that he ever existed.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 août 2012 - 12:32 .

[Fast Jimmy]

...what ball parks are you all going to that serve all of this warm beer? I'd file a complaint with BBB if someone was serving me poor quality alcoholic beverages, regardless of price.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 19 août 2012 - 12:54 .

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

...what ball Paris are you all going to that serve all of this warm beer? I'd file a complaint with BBB if someone was serving me poor quality alcoholic beverages, regardless of price.

My thoughts on warm beer can be summed up with a:

[Get Magna Carter]

naughty99 wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

I do feel that both DA2 and ME3 were balanced/structured round the presence of the dlc-only characters leaving me with an "incomplete" version.

You really felt Sebastian was essential for DA2? There were two other rogue companions and the content was tiny, reportedly 1-2 hours at most. This DLC did not look interesting to me at all.

The more quests and content, the better, of course, but my playthrough of the entire game with no DLC lasted well over 100 hours and it never felt like I was missing a superfluous companion character.

I did not say "essential".
In DA2 each supporting character (other than siblings) was designed to wield 1 of the 6 basic weapon types with Sebastian as the generic bow user.  Varric as wielder of unique weapon Bianca seems more naturally belonging as dlc (except that the story ws largely built around him).
In ME3 Liara has an ability that boosts biotic abilities of team-mates - in my playthrough she was the only biotic on the squad (Shepard was an infiltrater, Kaiden died on Virmire, and no access to dlc)
I'm pretty certain my playthrough of DA2 was a lot less than 100 hours and I don't think I missed out on any sidequests so I'm not certain how you were filling up that time.

[Joy Divison]

Il Divo wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

No, because the $60 I spend for Mass Effect is neither a 1000% percent markup nor something I can get for $15 at legitimate software vendors.  I am getting a complete product for a price comparable to similar products.  That is not the case when I get taken advatage of buying a $9 warm beer at a sporting event.

Oh please, now you're just attempting to rationalize what you believe was a worth-while purchase...like any other consumer. Because if that weren't the case, you wouldn't have paid $60 for Mass Effect any more than for that $9 beer. A beer that isn't worth $9 is a beer I'm not going to buy. And last I checked, "complete" product or not, for my $60, Mass Effect 3 had about the same length as Mass Effect 1, with a complete multiplayer mode as well.

At the end of the day, it's not your place to tell anyone else that they're being taken advantage of. I knew what Bioware was offering on the table, I decided it was well worth the cost-benefit analysis. As did you, or you wouldn't be buying warm beer.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything...[i]you are[/].  I am pointing out that whether or not a consumer willingly and knowingly opts to purchase $9 warm beer at a sporting event, they are being taken advantage of because they can get a cold beer for a quarter of that price elsewhere.  Whether or not I decide the purchase is worth the cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant; I am getting riped off.  That is not rationalization.  Contending the $1000 percent markup for a warm beer is not being taken advantage of is.

You seem to be under the impression that just because a consumer opts to pay a price and it fits is with their cost-benefit analysis, then they are not being ripped off or taken advantage of.  That is a poor premise which naively ignores the circumstances behind such a purchase.

[Seboist]

As bad as what EAware did with Javik in ME3 it pales in comparison to Capcom locking away 12 characters in a competitive fighting game. Capcom broke the camels back with that one and became my most hated game dev.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Elhanan wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Do you really believe that BW is this great company who does not explore how far they can go with what is considered acceptable? Do you really think that they do not push the limits? As a thought experiment: I can bring up the reverse of your quote. Where does your irrational glorification of the company comes from?

I believe that Bioware is a great company, and has numerous awards as evidence to that fact; both as game creators and as employers (eg; Canada Top 100, Alberta Top 100, etc).

I believe a company has the right to sell their product as they deem fit, and to make a profit. If that price is too high, I have the right to pass, wait, etc.

My beliefs are based on factual proof; not rumor, conjecture, and gossip.

Your beliefs indeed. And the facts that the media tell you. Ghehe.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 19 août 2012 - 04:40 .

[Il Divo]

Joy Divison wrote...

I'm not trying to rationalize anything...[i]you are[/].  I am pointing out that whether or not a consumer willingly and knowingly opts to purchase $9 warm beer at a sporting event, they are being taken advantage of because they can get a cold beer for a quarter of that price elsewhere. 

Then wait and get the cold beer. If the product didn't appear to be worth the price, you shouldn't have paid for it. I generally don't pay for things I consider worthless.

Whether or not I decide the purchase is worth the cost-benefit analysis is irrelevant; I am getting riped off.  That is not rationalization.  Contending the $1000 percent markup for a warm beer is not being taken advantage of is.

Apparently, since by your words a complete product is more important than a good one. I paid the same $60 for Mass Effect, a complete game, that I did for Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which had day 1 dlc. The former I consider a waste, the latter one of the most enjoyable experiences in a long time. But according to you, the cost/benefit of the situation didn't matter! Somehow, Square Enix screwed me even though their product was better than Bioware's, for the same price.

I mean, it's not like value is relative or anything...

You seem to be under the impression that just because a consumer opts to pay a price and it fits is with their cost-benefit analysis, then they are not being ripped off or taken advantage of.  That is a poor premise which naively ignores the circumstances behind such a purchase.

 Again, you had control over the purchase and could have said no at any point. They made the product, they sell it under their own terms. You either consider the price worth it...or you don't. Naievety is more in line with thinking that you should get whatever you want at whatever price you want. I do what I want with my money. Companies do what they want with their own product. I don't tell them what to do with their products, and they don't tell me what to do with my money. Like I said, it's a pretty straightforward arrangement.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 août 2012 - 03:50 .

[Joy Divison]

Il Divo wrote...

Apparently, since by your words a complete product is more important than a good one. I paid the same $60 for Mass Effect, a complete game, that I did for Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which had day 1 dlc. The former I consider a waste, the latter one of the most enjoyable experiences in a long time. But according to you, the cost/benefit of the situation didn't matter! Somehow, Square Enix screwed me even though their product was better than Bioware's, for the same price.

I mean, it's not like value is relative or anything...

Again, you had control over the purchase and could have said no at any point. They made the product, they sell it under their own terms. You either consider the price worth it...or you don't. Naievety is more in line with thinking that you should get whatever you want at whatever price you want. I do what I want with my money. Companies do what they want with their own product. I don't tell them what to do with their products, and they don't tell me what to do with my money. Like I said, it's a pretty straightforward arrangement.

You can boldface my text all day but you are misrepresenting what I am saying.

I never argued for or rationalized the legitimacy of a purchase.  You said I did.  I don't even own Mass Effect.

I never said a complete product is more important than a good one.  You said I did. 

I did not say cost-benefit does not matter.  I said that it was irrelevant in determining whether or not you got ripped off or taken advantage of as a customer and thus should not be used as the sole or even the primary determinant of such.  I never said it did not matter in a customer's decision to purchase a product.  The decision to buy a product does *not* mean the customer was not squeezed, gouged, or taken advanatge of.

Consider the following example.  Let's say you have a fatal disease called I-enjoy-paying-a-1000%-percent-markupitis.  You will die in two days without a cure.  There is a cure available at Shop Rite for $1.  But that is the only cure available anywhere.  I recognize these circumstances and purchase the cure before you.  I then turn around and in a straightforward open business arrangement offer to sell it to you for $1,000,000.  I mean, I'm not telling you what to do with your money.  Value is relative right?

Just because the value you receive from a product exceed the cost does not mean you as a customer aren't being ripped off.  That merely determines whether or not you will buy something.  That is why I purchase that $9 warm beer.  But I resent being taken advantage of while doing so.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 19 août 2012 - 04:47 .

[Elhanan]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Your beliefs indeed. And the facts that the media tell you. Ghehe.

Gamasutra is pretty much game Dev Central, as I understand; has a fairly good reputation. It seems to be a better choice than the latest theories delivered on  social forums. 

[Bostur]

Elhanan wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Your beliefs indeed. And the facts that the media tell you. Ghehe.

Gamasutra is pretty much game Dev Central, as I understand; has a fairly good reputation. It seems to be a better choice than the latest theories delivered on  social forums. 

http://www.gamasutra..._dayone_DLC.php

Now that you mention it, the discussion on Gamasutra is very similar to the one happening here. Maybe with the difference that people are more critical there.

Modifié par Bostur, 19 août 2012 - 05:16 .

[Il Divo]

Joy Divison wrote...

I did not say cost-benefit does not matter.  I said that it was irrelevant in determining whether or not you got ripped off or taken advantage of as a customer and thus should not be used as the sole or even the primary determinant of such.  I never said it did not matter in a customer's decision to purchase a product.  The decision to buy a product does *not* mean the customer was not squeezed, gouged, or taken advanatge of.

Sure, and it doesn't make the argument any less weak. Go tell anyone on earth who has ever bought a product and is happy with the cost/benefit analysis that they have been squeezed, gouged, and taken advantage of. They'd probably laugh at you.

That's the issue at hand,: you're attempting to impose a single value on all games, in order to be considered "fair", when none exists. "Developer A can't sell day 1 dlc because Developer B gives the complete game. Therefore, Developer A is screwing you".  You can get two movies for the same price, one might have special features, one might have nothing. You can pay the same price for two CD's, with a different number of songs. Here, you're paying the same price for two video games, but one has additional content not added to the disk. As long as you are aware of the full parameters of the deal, attempting to assign such a negative connotation to the supplier is pointless.

Consider the following example.  Let's say you have a fatal disease called I-enjoy-paying-a-1000%-percent-markupitis.  You will die in two days without a cure.  There is a cure available at Shop Rite for $1.  But that is the only cure available anywhere.  I recognize these circumstances and purchase the cure before you.  I then turn around and in a straightforward open business arrangement offer to sell it to you for $1,000,000.  I mean, I'm not telling you what to do with your money.  Value is relative right?

Let's avoid moral dilemmas in making the argument, they're not going to get us anywhere. Stick to the relevant parameters: entertainment industry. You're not going to die because Bioware didn't sell you a complete copy of Mass Effect 3, or DA:O. But given the same thought experiment with a more relevant factor, say a TV, I wouldn't complain. I either pay for the product...or I don't. I might consider the cost/benefit analysis to be so low as to be utterly worthless, but it's still not my place to tell a company that they have committed a moral abomination for keeping their interests in mind first, particularly if they have reason to believe that they can maximize their profits because there is a market for $1,000,000 TVs.

Just because the value you receive from a product exceed the cost does not mean you as a customer aren't being ripped off.  That merely determines whether or not you will buy something.  That is why I purchase that $9 warm beer.  But I resent being taken advantage of while doing so.

See above. Whether or not you are willing to buy something is all that's relevant in the market.  

As I pointed above, why should I (or anyone) who is content care? Value is relative, so the concept of "being ripped off" varies. It has no objective factor as you are attempting to apply to it, but implies that I (as a consumer) should be angry with the supplier in question, much like your beer analogy.

Referring back to my point above, if I can get two games, one I love and the other I hate, for the same price, why should I care that  the former is "ripping me off", even though it's superior in every way to the latter, providing me with a better deal? As I said, it has no value.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 août 2012 - 09:37 .

[Addai]

Il Divo wrote...
See above. Whether or not you are willing to buy something is all that's relevant in the market.  

As I pointed above, why should I (or anyone) who is content care? Value is relative, so the concept of "being ripped off" varies. It has no objective factor as you are attempting to apply to it, but implies that I (as a consumer) should be angry with the supplier in question, much like your beer analogy.

Can we just stipulate that we all understand the basics of consumer-supplier relations?  That price point is a flexible thing?  You seem to believe people criticizing these practices don't grasp this.

But even so, there is still room for discussion about whether you felt manipulated or cheated by your purchase or if you felt like you got good value.  What Joy Divison was saying still applies.  If you ponied up for something but weren't satisfied, you are much less likely to do so again.  The more the company squeezed out for you and the bigger the rift between what you wanted and what you got, the less likely you are to let yourself be tempted again.  The company still takes a customer satisfaction hit.  So it's still relevant to talk about sleazy business practice, even if we all understand that we're not dealing in absolutes.

[Morroian]

Bostur wrote...

http://www.gamasutra..._dayone_DLC.php

Now that you mention it, the discussion on Gamasutra is very similar to the one happening here. Maybe with the difference that people are more critical there.

I've just read through the comments and the debate there is far more reasoned than here.

[Fenris727]

It's so [elephant] crazy, but when I want to play a song, I don't need a client. I can just play it. If I want to read a digital book, I can just read it. I bought it. It's mine. What the [armadillo] is up with these arrogant game publishers?

[No swearing, please.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 20 août 2012 - 06:59 .

[LinksOcarina]

Morroian wrote...

Bostur wrote...

http://www.gamasutra..._dayone_DLC.php

Now that you mention it, the discussion on Gamasutra is very similar to the one happening here. Maybe with the difference that people are more critical there.

I've just read through the comments and the debate there is far more reasoned than here.

To quote one comment from this article at Gamasutra:

"Telling consumers they need to get more educated about how games are made is also not a direction I'd recommend unless you are intentionally trying to engender bad feeling."

I disagree. There is an ignorance about the logistics of game development, and sometimes that ignorance leads to irrational disdain. Since there are things one can rationally disdain (invasive DRM for example), it makes sense to work together to try to bring everyone's knowledge of the discourse up to par so efforts can be efficiently directed. Telling consumers they should be more educated (though what Tom said was "hopefully we can start to better educate our customers", putting the burden on us, which is about as polite as it can be said) about a topic they demonstrably do not understand should not offend anyone or engender bad feelings. It wouldn't surprise me if most people think developers are modifying on-disc data up to the day it hits store shelves, not because of stupidity but because they just haven't thought about how logistically impossible that is. Educating people to understand that the dev team is sitting on its hands for a period of time before the game ships and just as well be putting effort into giving them more content should fruitfully bring everyone to the same understanding of the process -- at which point arguments might still be made against day 1 DLC but would hopefully be more accurate. 

That is all. 

[Addai]

Morroian wrote...

Bostur wrote...

http://www.gamasutra..._dayone_DLC.php

Now that you mention it, the discussion on Gamasutra is very similar to the one happening here. Maybe with the difference that people are more critical there.

I've just read through the comments and the debate there is far more reasoned than here.

Looks like about the same discussion to me.

[Gatt9]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Bostur wrote...

http://www.gamasutra..._dayone_DLC.php

Now that you mention it, the discussion on Gamasutra is very similar to the one happening here. Maybe with the difference that people are more critical there.

I've just read through the comments and the debate there is far more reasoned than here.

To quote one comment from this article at Gamasutra:

"Telling consumers they need to get more educated about how games are made is also not a direction I'd recommend unless you are intentionally trying to engender bad feeling."

I disagree. There is an ignorance about the logistics of game development, and sometimes that ignorance leads to irrational disdain. Since there are things one can rationally disdain (invasive DRM for example), it makes sense to work together to try to bring everyone's knowledge of the discourse up to par so efforts can be efficiently directed. Telling consumers they should be more educated (though what Tom said was "hopefully we can start to better educate our customers", putting the burden on us, which is about as polite as it can be said) about a topic they demonstrably do not understand should not offend anyone or engender bad feelings. It wouldn't surprise me if most people think developers are modifying on-disc data up to the day it hits store shelves, not because of stupidity but because they just haven't thought about how logistically impossible that is. Educating people to understand that the dev team is sitting on its hands for a period of time before the game ships and just as well be putting effort into giving them more content should fruitfully bring everyone to the same understanding of the process -- at which point arguments might still be made against day 1 DLC but would hopefully be more accurate. 

That is all. 

The problem with his post is that it assumes two things...

1.  There's no bugs that need fixed,  which the industry firmly believes that it's ok to ship a game with a few dozen major bugs in it.

2.  The assumption that the work is being done in 3 weeks.  It's not being designed,  developed,  QA'd,  scored,  voices recorded,  cinematics,  etc in 3 weeks.  Look how long it took Bioware-EA to develop the extended endings.  If they couldn't do that in 3 weeks,  then how could they develop the DLC in 3 weeks?

He makes good points,  but glosses over the things that make it impossible for DLC to be developed in that short an amount of time.  He's handwaving away all of the issues.

[Elhanan]

Gatt9 wrote...

The problem with his post is that it assumes two things...

1.  There's no bugs that need fixed,  which the industry firmly believes that it's ok to ship a game with a few dozen major bugs in it.

2.  The assumption that the work is being done in 3 weeks.  It's not being designed,  developed,  QA'd,  scored,  voices recorded,  cinematics,  etc in 3 weeks.  Look how long it took Bioware-EA to develop the extended endings.  If they couldn't do that in 3 weeks,  then how could they develop the DLC in 3 weeks?

He makes good points,  but glosses over the things that make it impossible for DLC to be developed in that short an amount of time.  He's handwaving away all of the issues.

That quote followed this one:

Tom Baird

17 Aug 2012 at 9:42 am PST

"Due to the structure of a game's development cycle, content is not necessarily held back when it's Day 1 DLC.

Release Candidate testing is not a 1 day affair, and a game can be content complete months before it hits the shelves. These months between content complete and launch day are ideally when Day 1 DLC is made, and as such it can't be put into the original product or else content completion would be pushed back, which pushes back the launch day, which then still gives you a few months to add additional content that would have been unable to have been placed into the original game.

The complaints about Day 1 DLC are commonly due to a misunderstanding of how games get made, and hopefully we can start to better educate our customers to the process so they quit complaining about the logical outcome of said process, because the alternatives to Day 1 DLC is not more main game content, but simply less content overall. "

Modifié par Elhanan, 20 août 2012 - 05:01 .

[KDD-0063]

However, the existence of day 1 DLC, even if they are indeed made in 'free time' or with extra budget, falls dangerously close to ripping content from the game and sell it separately, as there is no reliable ways for consumers to distinguish between the two practices. The words from developers, designers, or gaming media is simply too unreliable and in fact worthless, because the chance of a company admitting that they rip content from the game is negligible.

Justifying a day 1 DLC practice by saying "it is made after the game is finished" means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because consumers cannot tell whether it is a lie or not, and because it is impossible for anyone to say that the DLC is ripped from the game, even if someone knows about it and wants to say it, the PR department won't allow it.

Therefore, as consumers, the concept of day 1 DLC is still 100% boycott worthy, because for consumers, it is impossible to boycott one practice in the above without boycotting the other as well. Maybe a day 1 DLC from one game could be so called content made after the main game is finished, or with extra budget, but allowing this practice to become the industrial norm will guarantee to allow the other practice as well.

For consumers it is tiresome and extremely difficult to form a very complicated set of rules about what is acceptable or not. It is also ironic that we have to research whether a statement from the company is a lie or not when we are specifically paying money for entertainment.

Modifié par KDD-0063, 20 août 2012 - 09:17 .

[Bostur]

If we are misinformed as consumers I would rather blame misleading marketing practices. If a consumer feels nickled and dimed I don't think 'education' will help much.

It really is an odd industry when the consumer is to blame for shortcomings in a product.

Modifié par Bostur, 20 août 2012 - 09:51 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Forgive me for the ignorance if I'm wrong, but I seem to read the underlying notion that one of the reasons for Day 1 DLC (aside to make more money), is to put developers straight to work who would otherwise be laid off.

Would such employees be contract workers? Surely you wouldn't lay off teams of permanent staff because they don't have assigned work for a number of weeks? Let alone the fact that they could work post-release support such as patches, or larger expansion type DLCs.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 20 août 2012 - 10:58 .

[Elhanan]

KDD-0063 wrote...

However, the existence of day 1 DLC, even if they are indeed made in 'free time' or with extra budget, falls dangerously close to ripping content from the game and sell it separately, as there is no reliable ways for consumers to distinguish between the two practices. The words from developers, designers, or gaming media is simply too unreliable and in fact worthless, because the chance of a company admitting that they rip content from the game is negligible.

Justifying a day 1 DLC practice by saying "it is made after the game is finished" means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because consumers cannot tell whether it is a lie or not, and because it is impossible for anyone to say that the DLC is ripped from the game, even if someone knows about it and wants to say it, the PR department won't allow it.

Therefore, as consumers, the concept of day 1 DLC is still 100% boycott worthy, because for consumers, it is impossible to boycott one practice in the above without boycotting the other as well. Maybe a day 1 DLC from one game could be so called content made after the main game is finished, or with extra budget, but allowing this practice to become the industrial norm will guarantee to allow the other practice as well.

For consumers it is tiresome and extremely difficult to form a very complicated set of rules about what is acceptable or not. It is also ironic that we have to research whether a statement from the company is a lie or not when we are specifically paying money for entertainment.

Sorry, but this makes as much of a debate as saying the authorities have not come clean over UFO's, Nessie, and Bigfoot. While you have the right to believe in conspiracies, undisclosed intelligence, and that game devs make secret pacts with each other to conceal trade secrets, it does not merit much of an arguement.