434 réponses à ce sujet

[KBomb]

Ninja Stan wrote...

[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.

*Snipped for space*

Well, to be fair, Stanley…I have never paid extra for DVD Special Features. They were just included on the disk to begin with. I’m not saying there aren’t any DVD’s that implement charging for deleted scenes, gag reels or commentary, but in all of my DVD collection, never once did I pay extra for them.

Also, it isn’t a fair comparison as the bonus content is already on the DVD. If I lend someone the DVD or sell it, the purchaser will be able to receive that content for no additional charge. Also, bonus features in a movie doesn’t add anything to the movie. I don’t need to see how a prop was made to enjoy the essence of the movie. Same with a deleted scene. It doesn’t change the structure of the movie. Also, I am not paying $60.00 or more to watch a two hour movie. However, if I am playing a video game, I want to experience everything that game has to offer.

I think some people feel if content was already made, it should be included before shipping and free to all. After all, it’s already made. The ship is already primed; it just needs to leave port.  It’s quite different for material that has been created long after release.

Not to speak for everyone opposed and surely, no one has to purchase DLC content, but it doesn’t change the feeling that you’re missing a piece of the game and to get the full experience, you must pay extra. It’s that feeling that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of some consumers.

Modifié par KBomb, 14 août 2012 - 01:41 .

[Zjarcal]

Velocithon wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

As long as they funnel that money into producing a quality core product, then this can only be a good thing.

Problem is, they never release a quality product.

Think about it; when has EA or Activision or any studio released a game with all this nickel and diming that has actually been good? And when I say "good", I'm talking about a game that people play for more than a year. If I'm going to shell out all that money, the game better last me a long time.

$100 a game is incredibly steep. However, look at Halo 3. That game topped the Live charts for nearly three straight years. I would gladly pay money for games like that. However, I have yet to see a product that was that successful which also had Day One DLC, microtransactions, etc.

Your definition of "quality product" or "a game that's actually been good" is not universal, so stop using that as an argument.

Also, you said "good" as in games that people play for years? I guess then the Call of Duty series is a masterpiece in your book (and no, that's not me bashing COD since I actually like those games a lot, but I have a feeling the OP doesn't, yet claims those games are "good").

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I guess BioWare adheres to the notion that all publicity is good publicity.

[Velocithon]

Zjarcal wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

As long as they funnel that money into producing a quality core product, then this can only be a good thing.

Problem is, they never release a quality product.

Think about it; when has EA or Activision or any studio released a game with all this nickel and diming that has actually been good? And when I say "good", I'm talking about a game that people play for more than a year. If I'm going to shell out all that money, the game better last me a long time.

$100 a game is incredibly steep. However, look at Halo 3. That game topped the Live charts for nearly three straight years. I would gladly pay money for games like that. However, I have yet to see a product that was that successful which also had Day One DLC, microtransactions, etc.

Your definition of "quality product" or "a game that's actually been good" is not universal, so stop using that as an argument.

Also, you said "good" as in games that people play for years? I guess then the Call of Duty series is a masterpiece in your book (and no, that's not me bashing COD since I actually like those games a lot, but I have a feeling the OP doesn't, yet claims those games are "good").

Re-read my description of a game that is "quality". CoD doesn't nickel and dime their costumers. They offer map packs and that's it. I was referring to games that nickel and dime their consumers and how they aren't high quality games. Look at GoW3. Day One DLC, tons of pointless (expensive) weapon skins, Season Pass, etc. I never see anyone play GoW anymore. It lasted about 3-4 months before my entire friends list stopped playing. Coincidence? Maybe.

Modifié par Velocithon, 14 août 2012 - 01:59 .

[RedArmyShogun]

*Shrugs* just saying the same stuff EA was at E3. In terms of where BW stands in ownership its clear.

Also not a big lose, there are plenty of other sources I can buy from. EA and BW won't get a dime more than I want to spend.

[C9316]

1983 called, it wants it crumbling gaming industry back..

[naughty99]

I was pretty impressed with how the multiplayer handles microtransactions.

Most games with microtransactions are designed in a way where it's all about the loot, and the game is very tedious or almost impossible unless you spend money in the virtual shop. In contrast, I've never spent a dime on this stuff and the ME3 multiplayer was still a lot of fun. You get lots of character unlocks and items just from playing the game for a few hours, not to mention all the free map packs provided in the multiplayer DLC.

Don't really care one way or the other about Day One DLC. Some people like to buy this sort of thing that adds a new companion and a very short linear mission, but I'd only be interested in a large DLC on the order of Awakenings, or possibly the "ultimate" edition whenever it is released. I was not interested in the Mass Effect 2 DLC, either, although I enjoyed the Project Overlord and Shadow Broker missions included in the GOTY.

Ninja Stan wrote...
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.

 

Well said! No one is twisting anyone's arm forcing us to buy DLC and the game is actually quite fun without any DLC at all. Really enjoyed my ME3 SP campaign playthrough and not once did I feel like I was missing out on something because I didn't buy From Ashes or some item pack DLC.

I look forward to seeing what additional content is forthcoming during the next year or so and I will probably pick up the GOTY edition with everything, or some sort of big expansion like Awakenings and then do another playthrough with a different class.

Modifié par naughty99, 14 août 2012 - 03:09 .

[Elvis_Mazur]

Meh, this is all the consumer's fault (in general). Gamers seem to be a lost cause.

[MingWolf]

Quote from article...
"Gamers are happier, as they are able to spend money when they want".

Ah, good ole micro-transactions and DLCs. What the quote really translates to is "we should charge the customers' money when they are least price sensitive, because we can make more money that way." While it's fine that a company should, in their interest, make money, the tactic here is not unlike a telemarketer trying to sell you something by persuading and leveraging on your senses; where sometimes, it is simply difficult to refuse spending without iron-clad willpower. As a gamer, I'm not sure if this actually makes me happier. Sure, they give the option for you to decide whether or not you want extra stuff, but they do so with bait attached to the hook.

Modifié par MingWolf, 14 août 2012 - 02:35 .

[RedArmyShogun]

MingWolf wrote...

Quote from article...
"Gamers are happier, as they are able to spend money when they want".

Ah, good ole micro-transactions and DLCs. What the quote really translates to is "we should charge the customers' money when they are least price sensitive, because we can make more money that way." While it's fine that a company should, in their interest, make money, the tactic here is not unlike a telemarketer trying to sell you something by persuading and leveraging on your senses; where sometimes, it is simply difficult to refuse spending without iron-clad willpower. As a gamer, I'm not sure if this actually makes me happier. Sure, they give the option for you to decide whether or not you want extra stuff, but they do so with bait attached to the hook.

A man like that has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it. 

A man like that wants to die.

[slimgrin]

CrustyBot wrote...

I guess BioWare adheres to the notion that all publicity is good publicity.

I think that is what's going on here. I wouldn't call their PR particularly clever, but they do know the value of controversy.

[CS420]

slimgrin wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...
I guess BioWare adheres to the notion that all publicity is good publicity.

I think that is what's going on here. I wouldn't call their PR particularly clever, but they do know the value of controversy.

Why isn't this good publicity?  I'm very excited about the new gaming possibilities that this avenue will open up.

[CS420]

greengoron89 wrote...
^Alright, you can cut the act now. I know you's trollin'.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[TJPags]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

They can make money however they want to and the consumer base will respond either negatively or positively. That's how capitalism works. I personally don't see this as a problem.

Yea, I'm going to go with this.

Some of you hate the idea of Day 1 DLC, microtransactions, bundled DLC, and such.  Seems enough people are okay with it that these things get sold.

Don't like weapon skins, or new armor skins?  Don't buy them.  They get packaged with something you do want?  Buy it or not.

What's this feeling that if you don't like something, it's no good?

Anyone here ever buy a car?  Want the power seats?  You also get leather seats, like it or not.  Want the tow package?  You get roof racks, like it or not.  Want the upgraded stereo?  It's packaged with the larger tires.

Are these all "scams" too?

Businesses exist for one reason - to make money.  The only people they want to make happy are the owners/investors.  They make these people happy by making money.

Fans?  Fans are just customers.  You know what happens if you lose a customer?  You try to get another one.  Doesn't matter if it's the old one or a new one - it's still a customer.  Customers are simply the means by which the company makes money.

Bottom line - don't like how Bioware or EA or Bethesda does something?  Don't buy ANY of their games, and hope enough people feel the same, and it goes out of business.  Complaining about what BW did with ME3, and then going off to buy DA3 (when it comes out) does no good.  Neither do complaints by people who STILL BOUGHT THE GAME.

[The Hierophant]

Preston9000 wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...
^Alright, you can cut the act now. I know you's trollin'.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

So it's you just being you?

[CS420]

The Hierophant wrote...

Preston9000 wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...
^Alright, you can cut the act now. I know you's trollin'.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

So it's you just being you?

Indeed, I am just sorry that so many people have come to equate opinions that differ from their own on sensitive issues like this with trolling.

[DukeOfNukes]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

The video game industry is dying...and you guys are surprised that video game companies are nickel and diming us?

Wow.

What on Earth makes you think that isn't WHY the industry is dying? They spend millions of dollars on advertising, usually more than it cost to make the game, and then try to sell you an unfinished product with the promise that if you give them a little bit more money, you can get the full experience at a later date.

Lets take this model with another form of media, movies.

I buy my friends copy of Star Wars that he no longer wants to watch. The movie skips over the part where Luke meets Han Solo, and any scenes involving Chewbacca altogether, and then ends right after the gang escapes from the Death Star. For 1 buck, you get the Chewbacca character put into your movie on day one! Another $1 will get you the scenes where ObiWan chops an aliens arm off and Han Solo shoots Greedo. Another $3 gets you special "Epilogue" DLC pack which includes 3 missions: Shooting down the Tie Fighters in the Millenium Falcon, meeting all Lukes friends on Yavin and finding out the Death Star is headed right towards them, and finally, the Battle of Yavin.

[TJPags]

greengoron89 wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Complaining about what BW did with ME3, and then going off to buy DA3 (when it comes out) does no good.

Neither does trying to deflect their complaints with a course in economics.

Complaints are all well and good.  Economics are what businesses do.

[CS420]

DukeOfNukes wrote...
What on Earth makes you think that isn't WHY the industry is dying? They spend millions of dollars on advertising, usually more than it cost to make the game, and then try to sell you an unfinished product with the promise that if you give them a little bit more money, you can get the full experience at a later date.
Lets take this model with another form of media, movies.
I buy my friends copy of Star Wars that he no longer wants to watch. The movie skips over the part where Luke meets Han Solo, and any scenes involving Chewbacca altogether, and then ends right after the gang escapes from the Death Star. For 1 buck, you get the Chewbacca character put into your movie on day one! Another $1 will get you the scenes where ObiWan chops an aliens arm off and Han Solo shoots Greedo. Another $3 gets you special "Epilogue" DLC pack which includes 3 missions: Shooting down the Tie Fighters in the Millenium Falcon, meeting all Lukes friends on Yavin and finding out the Death Star is headed right towards them, and finally, the Battle of Yavin.

Sadly, it's true, the industry is dying.  Videogame companies want to make high quality games, but are unable to make a proffit because they are continously robbed of their revenue by pirates. Crytek, for example, was robbed by so many pirates that they failed to profit from Crysis 2.  If this is how gamers reward developers for innovation, the industry will continue to decline.

[Gatt9]

Ninja Stan wrote...

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.

No it isn't Stan.  You know that,  just as well as I do.  You know why this is being done,  and we both know it has nothing to do with "Consumers love it!".

This isn't being done because Consumers are enamoured of the idea,  if it was,  then it wouldn't be being designed as an impediment or hostage content.  Lets take two examples...

Dead Space 2:  Where content was held hostage behind doors in the main game,  was already on the disc on Day 1.  This wasn't an added bonus,  an added bonus would've been a new area,  or just dropped in your inventory.  It was very specifically designed to frustrate players and coerce them into buying the DLC by putting it right in front of them,  on Day 1,  but not letting them have it.

Mass Effect 3:  Day 1 DLC consisting of a character EA knew full well would be critical to players,  designed right along side the main game and planned from the start,  as demonstrated by the banter between Prothy and other crew members,  which could only have occured if it was written,  planned,  and recorded when all of the other voice actors were in the studio.  EA didn't bring them all back in the last 4 weeks just to record that stuff for a DLC they just suddenly decided to do,  it was planned the whole time,  right with the rest of the game.  Then there's the Best Ending,  locked away unless you play Multiplayer,  designed specifically to force people to purchase Online Passes if they bought used games.

This isn't about "Consumers love it!".  This is carefully designed content from the start of development,  carefully placed to coerce gamers to buy it to get the full game that in reality,  is already on the disc. 

It's there because Publishers are losing revenue,  and have been losing it for the last 3 years,  by forcing every game to become a Shooter instead of letting development teams make great games.  It's an effort to disguise how poorly Publisher's titles are selling by bolstering revenues through gouging.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "Consumers want this stuff" and everything to do with Publishers trying to find ways to prevent their Shareholders from learning that their business plan is actually driving customers away.  Every time they gouge one of the remaining customers with DLC they get to pretend they didn't lose the other customer when the quarterly is announced,  since these $10 prices are conviently about what a Publisher would've made on the sale of a game.

It's a timebomb though,  because Consumers are increasingly driven away because they no longer see value in buying a $60 game they know is incomplete until they cough up another $10-$20,  and the market continues to lose more sales.  It's easy to see this is true,  just go to any forum and read how many people now state they'll wait for "The version with all the DLC already in it".  People are passing on release because of this monetization,  and there's no guarantee they'll buy it later after the hype dies down and the user reviews come in.

[Brockololly]

"Fans do want more content. From the moment the game launches. They tend
to say 'I want it now!' So it needs to be there when it's ready,"
BioWare online development director Fernando Melo explained at GDC
Europe today. "They choose when to pick it up, day one or later."

Fans want to be able to purchase a complete game day 1. Melo seems to be possibly be misconstruing one's willingness to buy Day 1 DLC with an approval of the existence of Day 1 DLC. I can pretty much guarantee you that people that buy Day 1 DLC would be happier saving money and simply having that content included in the base game- like Shale, not Javik. Especially when its something like Javik in ME3 who apparently is heavily connected to the lore and story of the game but unless you preordered you had to shell out extra money for him Day 1, even if you bought new.

"Gamers are actually happier, as they are able to spend money when they
want. People may not want to pay upfront. They may be happier to pay
when they are 'in the moment'."

Hmmmm...yeah now this just seems sleezy and exploitative. Its almost entirely reminiscent of what Riccitiello said a while ago on microtransactions:

When you're six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time. The reason the pay first, pay later works so nicely is a consumer gets engaged in a property they might spend ten, twenty, thirty, fifty hours in the game and when they're deep within the game and well invested in it, we're not gouging, but we're charging and at that point in time, the commitment can be pretty high.

So the publisher and developers are likely happier, but I truly doubt that the player spending money in the heat of the moment is happy.

Especially with something like ME3 or even Battlefield 3- those aren't even free to play games, as you're spending $60 to buy the game and then possibly more if you don't want to grind away to get unlocks or deal with random unlocks. I think its been calculated to unlock everything in Battlefield 3, it would take about 5 years of playing at a very high level. Or you can shell out something like $40 to EA. Thats a problem when that sort of crappy progression system is built right into the game design.

Its just exceedingly exploitative and it seems dirty as hell. It simply makes it seem that the publisher/developer is nickel and diming the consumer to death. Valve does microtransactions much better- limit them to vanity items and let the community creators actually profit on items being sold.

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 août 2012 - 03:34 .

[Addai]

TJPags wrote...
Bottom line - don't like how Bioware or EA or Bethesda does something?  Don't buy ANY of their games, and hope enough people feel the same, and it goes out of business.  Complaining about what BW did with ME3, and then going off to buy DA3 (when it comes out) does no good.  Neither do complaints by people who STILL BOUGHT THE GAME.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't buy the game- ME3, that is.  I wish I hadn't bought DA2 and given in to getting that guy in the dorky armor for extra cash.  Makes me feel dirty to have contributed to the delinquency.

And consumer complaint is also a valid part of capitalism.  Companies have to work harder to build a reputation than just making a quick buck.  What's really galling is that this was at the Game Developer's Conference, so they're touting these practices to other developers.  I hope at least a few of the people in that room were grinning at the thought of profiting from Bioware's plunge in credibility as a developer.  Actually Bioware doesn't worry me because their games have been so poor anyway, it's games like Diablo III who use the same model and sell like hotcakes that are the problem.

Modifié par Addai67, 14 août 2012 - 05:55 .