434 réponses à ce sujet

[Velocithon]

wolfsite wrote...

If you want to blame someone, blame the consumer.

You can't fault a business for seeing that the consumer is buying up these services and wanting to increase there profit by using the methods more often.

A lot of people say the consumer does not want these methods, yet the consumer is the one showing that the demand for these methods is present.

Yeah...and no. I mean come on, this is borderline dirty what they're doing. They are deliberately taking advantage of people and coercing them into spending more money than they probably should have to.

I understand that consumers still do this, thus companies will not change. However, the more we talk about this, the better chance that one day the companies will truley overstep their boundaries and gamers will demand change.

[eroeru]

 @ Amat3rasu

You say all "should understand" that what Bioware's doing is normal and for the best, because otherwise fans wouldn't be happy with it... Wow... You do see that you're responding to the very phenomenon of fans not being happy with this, and say that they should be happy because what Bioware is doing is alright because the fans are happy... Very messed up thinking this is . 

I don't understand people who don't understand complaints.

Modifié par eroeru, 14 août 2012 - 12:23 .

[Velocithon]

Preston9000 wrote...

Velocithon wrote...
 I thought this was a great read. It just shows how the industry is declining for the fans. Sure, the studios might see this as a very successful move, but as a fan of games this brings nothing but sadness. It's a shame that a great studio like Bioware fell into this trap.
I urge all of you not give into these tactics. Day One DLC is bad. Micro-transactions are bad. They are trademarks of greedy companies, and Bioware really opened my eyes with this given the poor quality of ME3. Personally, in the future, I will refuse to support studios which do this.
I'm interested in what other people here think about this.

I'm sure that day one dlc and microtransitions are bad in your opinion, but it is just that.  Microtransactions allow players to just pay for the content they want without wasting money on content they don't want, while Day 1 DLC shortens the waiting time when you want more content.

How does micro transactions allow me to spend money on things I want, not on things I don't want? Are you referring to DLC getting "bundled" (like Skyrim Dawnguard with the Dawnguard missions + dragon weapons?). 

[Mr.House]

Preston9000 wrote...

Velocithon wrote...
 I thought this was a great read. It just shows how the industry is declining for the fans. Sure, the studios might see this as a very successful move, but as a fan of games this brings nothing but sadness. It's a shame that a great studio like Bioware fell into this trap.
I urge all of you not give into these tactics. Day One DLC is bad. Micro-transactions are bad. They are trademarks of greedy companies, and Bioware really opened my eyes with this given the poor quality of ME3. Personally, in the future, I will refuse to support studios which do this.
I'm interested in what other people here think about this.

I'm sure that day one dlc and microtransitions are bad in your opinion, but it is just that.  Microtransactions allow players to just pay for the content they want without wasting money on content they don't want, while Day 1 DLC shortens the waiting time when you want more content.

Day one dlc is fine, when it's not content that was cut from the game, sadly Biowares day one dlc is content that was cut from the game to make a quick buck.

[CS420]

Mr.House wrote...

Preston9000 wrote...

Velocithon wrote...
 I thought this was a great read. It just shows how the industry is declining for the fans. Sure, the studios might see this as a very successful move, but as a fan of games this brings nothing but sadness. It's a shame that a great studio like Bioware fell into this trap.
I urge all of you not give into these tactics. Day One DLC is bad. Micro-transactions are bad. They are trademarks of greedy companies, and Bioware really opened my eyes with this given the poor quality of ME3. Personally, in the future, I will refuse to support studios which do this.
I'm interested in what other people here think about this.

I'm sure that day one dlc and microtransitions are bad in your opinion, but it is just that.  Microtransactions allow players to just pay for the content they want without wasting money on content they don't want, while Day 1 DLC shortens the waiting time when you want more content.

Day one dlc is fine, when it's not content that was cut from the game, sadly Biowares day one dlc is content that was cut from the game to make a quick buck.

Charging for disc locked content is more like charging for a side of fires than cutting a burger in half and charging for both pieces.  The fries and the burger were made at the same time in the same place, but the fries were never cut from the burger.

Modifié par Preston9000, 14 août 2012 - 12:31 .

[wolfsite]

Velocithon wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

If you want to blame someone, blame the consumer.

You can't fault a business for seeing that the consumer is buying up these services and wanting to increase there profit by using the methods more often.

A lot of people say the consumer does not want these methods, yet the consumer is the one showing that the demand for these methods is present.

Yeah...and no. I mean come on, this is borderline dirty what they're doing. They are deliberately taking advantage of people and coercing them into spending more money than they probably should have to.

I understand that consumers still do this, thus companies will not change. However, the more we talk about this, the better chance that one day the companies will truley overstep their boundaries and gamers will demand change.

You want to demand change, you need to do it with your wallet.  It's hard to say we don't want this when people are making it a successful business model.  Hard to say it doesn't work if only 100 people say it doesn't but 1000 purchase the content.

[slimgrin]

[Violation of Rule #6 removed]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 14 août 2012 - 12:38 .

[Mr.House]

Preston9000 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Preston9000 wrote...

Velocithon wrote...
 I thought this was a great read. It just shows how the industry is declining for the fans. Sure, the studios might see this as a very successful move, but as a fan of games this brings nothing but sadness. It's a shame that a great studio like Bioware fell into this trap.
I urge all of you not give into these tactics. Day One DLC is bad. Micro-transactions are bad. They are trademarks of greedy companies, and Bioware really opened my eyes with this given the poor quality of ME3. Personally, in the future, I will refuse to support studios which do this.
I'm interested in what other people here think about this.

I'm sure that day one dlc and microtransitions are bad in your opinion, but it is just that.  Microtransactions allow players to just pay for the content they want without wasting money on content they don't want, while Day 1 DLC shortens the waiting time when you want more content.

Day one dlc is fine, when it's not content that was cut from the game, sadly Biowares day one dlc is content that was cut from the game to make a quick buck.

Charging for disc locked content is more like charging for a side of fires than cutting a burger in half and charging for both pieces.  The fries and the burger were made at the same time in the same place, but the fries were never cut from the burger.

Are you srs? You do know that Shale and Javik WHERE cut content right?

[CS420]

Velocithon wrote...
How does micro transactions allow me to spend money on things I want, not on things I don't want? Are you referring to DLC getting "bundled" (like Skyrim Dawnguard with the Dawnguard missions + dragon weapons?). 

Precisely, I'd rather pay less for a story pack than be forced to pay for game-breakingly overpowered weapons that I won't use anyway.

[CS420]

Mr.House wrote...
Are you srs? You do know that Shale and Javik WHERE cut content right?

Didn't you read the article?  It said that each component of the disc locked content was programmed AFTER its vanilla counterpart.

[Ninja Stan]

Velocithon wrote...

Yeah...and no. I mean come on, this is borderline dirty what they're doing. They are deliberately taking advantage of people and coercing them into spending more money than they probably should have to.

Please demonstrate how people are being "coerced" into buying DLC or microtransaction items. Please name one game that doesn't work out of the box unless DLC and/or microtransactions are purchased. And please don't try to sell me a line about "complete game experience," because that's not what your allegation is. And if you can't, I would encourage you to change the tone of your argument to be less accusatory.

I understand that consumers still do this, thus companies will not change. However, the more we talk about this, the better chance that one day the companies will truley overstep their boundaries and gamers will demand change.

The consumer is and has always been the one who will bring about that day. The day that consumers no longer want to purchase things this way is the day that it largely goes away. Until that day comes, companies will continue to serve customers the way customers wish to be served. This isn't new, and it isn't videogame-industry-specific. Whether you yourself like it has very little effect on how the market works.

[Mr.House]

Preston9000 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
Are you srs? You do know that Shale and Javik WHERE cut content right?

Didn't you read the article?  It said that each component of the disc locked content was programmed AFTER its vanilla counterpart.

La sigh.

Shale was cut from DAO because there was many issues with her, she was then put back in the game when DAO was delayed so the console verison could be finished(PC version was odne) So they had a year and they decided to go back to work on Shale and made her working along with doing Wardens Keep and starting work on the expansion, and also redoing her "recruit mission. However in the files you can find dialog and the spot where her orginal spot was. However 95% of Shale was not changed and was simply readded. However the issue is they could have easly put her back in the game and not made her dlc, they made her dlc for again, a quick buck and she was very expensive.

Javik was in the orginal script and played a massive role in the story, won't go into details because of spoilers, but when they moved him to dlc the team had to make massive changes to the main story.



These are facts. Anyone who followed DAO during it's dev and followed the whole thing about Shale and read the orignal script of ME3 knows this.

Modifié par Mr.House, 14 août 2012 - 12:46 .

[Blastback]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

Yeah...and no. I mean come on, this is borderline dirty what they're doing. They are deliberately taking advantage of people and coercing them into spending more money than they probably should have to.

Please demonstrate how people are being "coerced" into buying DLC or microtransaction items. Please name one game that doesn't work out of the box unless DLC and/or microtransactions are purchased. And please don't try to sell me a line about "complete game experience," because that's not what your allegation is. And if you can't, I would encourage you to change the tone of your argument to be less accusatory.

I understand that consumers still do this, thus companies will not change. However, the more we talk about this, the better chance that one day the companies will truley overstep their boundaries and gamers will demand change.

The consumer is and has always been the one who will bring about that day. The day that consumers no longer want to purchase things this way is the day that it largely goes away. Until that day comes, companies will continue to serve customers the way customers wish to be served. This isn't new, and it isn't videogame-industry-specific. Whether you yourself like it has very little effect on how the market works.

The problem is that it does genuinly feel like we are being strong armed.  Having content on the disk that we can't access feels like we are being ripped off, that we are gettin an incomplete product if we don't pay extra.  And perception is very powerful. 

Also, while there are plenty of us who object to this model and refuse on principle to partake in it, and excercise our power of the wallet, we all know that enough players are going to go along with this method to justify it's continued use to companies.  And we have no way of knowing if that's actually how they want to be served, or just that they feel like they have to to get the complete experiance.

[Ninja Stan]

Mr.House wrote...
Are you srs? You do know that Shale and Javik WHERE cut content right?

Shale was indeed "cut content," but it wasn't cut with the intention to sell later as DLC. Shale was cut with the intention of not having it in the game at all, ever. That's what "cut" content is, the stuff the ends up on the editing room floor, like deleted scenes and alternate endings and openings, extended scenes, unedited footage--oh hey, wait a tic. We pay extra for cut content all the time already, don't we? in the form of DVD special features? And some of that stuff is cut directly from the finished film during the editing process.

And "cut content" is a pretty buzzword but doesn't at all address when and why the content was cut. Shale, for example, was cut due to lack of time somewhere midway through production. There's a bunch of stuff that may have been cut super early in production due to not fitting in with the way the game ended up, or requiring the creation of time-consuming assets that would only be used once. If BioWare decided to dust off these assets/stories/characters/whatever and spend time finishing its development to release as DLC, would that still count as "cut content" that players are "entitled" to? Just because it was part of the game in its early stages?

Content gets cut, added, and modified all the time throughout the development and production process. If you truly are arguing for "cut content," where is the line drawn? More often than not, people are just interested in getting more stuff (especially more stuff that seems interesting) for free in their beloved videogame.

In the case of Shale, if the game's release had not been delayed, Shale would never have existed in-game. It was only when BioWare had more time to release that the decision was made to take the Shale content, finish it, pretty it up, and include it as the Stone Prisoner DLC. Shale was, AFAIK, not "on disc."

Should BioWare then charge extra for content that was added after a certain point in the process? It would kind of change the definition of what constitues "the game," don't you think?

[slimgrin]

greengoron89 wrote...

Sadly, Stan and a few others here have a point - none of this would have been possible if the consumer hadn't allowed it to happen in the first place. Game companies tossed the bait out there, and customers fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Now that this has been shown to be a highly profitable business model, it will never change until the day comes that it ceases to be profitable - and once again, that's purely up to the consumer.

Yeah it's all business, I get it. I still don't respect their approach, and I'm simply no longer in their sights as a potential customer because I've no interest in shelling out money every time I want an extra weapon pack or outfit. I think it's absurd.  

Modifié par slimgrin, 14 août 2012 - 12:53 .

[android654]

Jesus Christ... I've heard of proactively building your own press, but this is ridiculous. Ridiculous and sad.

[Bushido Effect]

Mr. Thax and his representative would approve of BW's practices.

[Blastback]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
Are you srs? You do know that Shale and Javik WHERE cut content right?

Shale was indeed "cut content," but it wasn't cut with the intention to sell later as DLC. Shale was cut with the intention of not having it in the game at all, ever. That's what "cut" content is, the stuff the ends up on the editing room floor, like deleted scenes and alternate endings and openings, extended scenes, unedited footage--oh hey, wait a tic. We pay extra for cut content all the time already, don't we? in the form of DVD special features? And some of that stuff is cut directly from the finished film during the editing process.

And "cut content" is a pretty buzzword but doesn't at all address when and why the content was cut. Shale, for example, was cut due to lack of time somewhere midway through production. There's a bunch of stuff that may have been cut super early in production due to not fitting in with the way the game ended up, or requiring the creation of time-consuming assets that would only be used once. If BioWare decided to dust off these assets/stories/characters/whatever and spend time finishing its development to release as DLC, would that still count as "cut content" that players are "entitled" to? Just because it was part of the game in its early stages?

Content gets cut, added, and modified all the time throughout the development and production process. If you truly are arguing for "cut content," where is the line drawn? More often than not, people are just interested in getting more stuff (especially more stuff that seems interesting) for free in their beloved videogame.

In the case of Shale, if the game's release had not been delayed, Shale would never have existed in-game. It was only when BioWare had more time to release that the decision was made to take the Shale content, finish it, pretty it up, and include it as the Stone Prisoner DLC. Shale was, AFAIK, not "on disc."

Should BioWare then charge extra for content that was added after a certain point in the process? It would kind of change the definition of what constitues "the game," don't you think?

I can only speak for myself here, so take my opinion for what it's worth.  But it's not having cut content be resurected as paid DLC that's the issue.  It's stuff that's finished and availbe for consumption when the game is released that feels wrong to most players.

I'll admit, I have mixed feelings about the approach.  I don't object as strongly as much as some players, but it bothers me.

[android654]

slimgrin wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...

Sadly, Stan and a few others here have a point - none of this would have been possible if the consumer hadn't allowed it to happen in the first place. Game companies tossed the bait out there, and customers fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Now that this has been shown to be a highly profitable business model, it will never change until the day comes that it ceases to be profitable - and once again, that's purely up to the consumer.

Yeah it's all business, I get it. I still don't respect their approach, and I'm simply no longer in their sights as a potential customer because I've no interest in shelling out money every time I want an extra weapon pack or outfit. I think it's absurd.  

Word. I'm not into paying 5 bucks for different skins of a shotgun and a average looking armor that's been sitting on someone's desktop in the office for three months. Want me to drop 20 bucks on DLC? Look a Bethesda, build something like Dawngaurd.

What happened to making something that was worth what they were charging?

[s17tabris]

I don't like it either, but I can't blame game companies for this one. As long as people pay, game companies will continue to churn out Day 1 DLCs, microtransactions, etc.

[.458]

It is a commercial game, by a for-profit company. If they "tempt" someone to purchase, they did their job right. There are too many quality issues for me right now though, and a lot of other customers...meaning BioWare is unlikely to tempt many of us who they otherwise could. Greedy would have to mean overpriced or otherwise coercing us to pay for what we don't really want...I don't think that's the case.

Modifié par .458, 14 août 2012 - 01:07 .

[Velocithon]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

Yeah...and no. I mean come on, this is borderline dirty what they're doing. They are deliberately taking advantage of people and coercing them into spending more money than they probably should have to.

Please demonstrate how people are being "coerced" into buying DLC or microtransaction items. Please name one game that doesn't work out of the box unless DLC and/or microtransactions are purchased. And please don't try to sell me a line about "complete game experience," because that's not what your allegation is. And if you can't, I would encourage you to change the tone of your argument to be less accusatory.

Sure. First, like another user said, perception. Day One DLC just feels like something that was ut from the game in order to be sold separately for a quick buck. It also makes people feel like "gee DLC already...I guess maybe I need this in order to get the full experience". As for microtransactions, it's different. Take Bungie for example. They had Bungie Pro, a service which allowed for extra filesharing slots. This is fine, as it is purely optional, has zero effect on gameplay, and is simply there if the user needs it. However, ME3 takes advantage of frustrated players by saying "hey...you don't like how our store never gives you what you want...just give us some money and get it faster". My allegation is exactly about the complete game experience. They made the complete experience so hard and time consuming to achieve, that they are betting on people getting frustrated enough to impusively shell out cash to hopefully get everything faster.

Ninja Stan wrote...

Velocithon wrote...
I understand that consumers still do this, thus companies will not change. However, the more we talk about this, the better chance that one day the companies will truley overstep their boundaries and gamers will demand change.

The consumer is and has always been the one who will bring about that day. The day that consumers no longer want to purchase things this way is the day that it largely goes away. Until that day comes, companies will continue to serve customers the way customers wish to be served. This isn't new, and it isn't videogame-industry-specific. Whether you yourself like it has very little effect on how the market works.

Problem here is there are TONS of people who buy games. And TONS of those people are simply casual gamers who really don't follow games closely (via forums and whatnot). Chances are since so many big time publishers and studios are donig this now, it will not go away unless the hardcore minority complains enough. I understand this thread in the grand scheme of things is completely pointless and will most likely result in nothing. However, eventually, with enough complaints, someone somewhere who has the time and resources to mount a boycott will do so after hearing a complaint.
People say to vote with your wallet, and that's exactly what I'm doing. I just hope others realize  that, although you may not have a huge problem with the current industry, it most likely is not heading in a favorable direction for consumers, so best start watching out and voting with your wallet now before it gets out of hand.

Modifié par Velocithon, 14 août 2012 - 01:18 .