434 réponses à ce sujet

[Dancing Douglas]

But then other companies adopt the same ****ty marketing ethic.

[Elhanan]

According to Todd Howard, consumers become upset with early or late DLC. Even here on the mostly pro Skyrim thread, there was some irritation that the PC had to wait more than a month after the 360 received Dawnguard. Fans will chafe in spite of these choices, and Hater's gotta Hate.

http://www.joystiq.c...f-skyrim-and-s/


Personally, as long as DLC remains optional for play, the companies may release it as they deem best. If I could use it and it appears to be enjoyable, I may aquire it. With the DA series, I purchased most evrything. In the ME series, I chose far less content. But in both game series, nothing was added that was essential to play, so I am content with their content.

OTOH, if too much content is added as DLC, then that is a lot of features that will not be seen by many Players. if it were included initially as part of the game, or at least the CE versions, then folks will see it, play it, talk about it, etc. Adding it later, no matter how good it is will be seen by fewer clients.

Good luck to them, and us!

[Ridwan]

ReconTeam wrote...

Unfortunately the industry has shown that this micro-transaction business works. Hell, just look at people paying for hats in TF2. Virtual hats that serve no purpose other than for other people to see you wearing a stupid hat. Gabe Newell is laughing somewhere while ripping off another massive turkey leg. People will buy anything.

Oh and I feel obligated to mention Crysis 3 for some reason.

I have 0 problem at all, if people want to waste their money on cosmetic stuff that doesn't do a damn thing.

Day One DLC, like Javik pisses me off though.

It's a freaking Prothean, the race who heavily influenced the world of Mass Effect and we have to pay for it? **** you, plain and simple.

That was not cool Bioware, and you know it. What you did with that was disgusting and I'm proud to say, that I have not bought that DLC, nor have I bought ME3 at full price. Sadly though, you have a ton of fans who will look past any type of wrong doings, and still open their wallets for you. Just like fans in other games that are clearly milking their consumers.

Hey you! Yeah you. Put that Dragonlance novel down, first it's not good (seriously folks, most of the videogame and fantasy novels are written for 13 year olds). Second you're ruining it for the rest of us, when you insist on giving money away for something that should be free. "But it's my money." Yeah, but then don't be surprised when it all comes crashing down on you.

[AngryFrozenWater]

If I buy a game then it needs to be complete. If I need to buy additional content to get a full experience then I am the wrong target audience for that. If others want to be milked that way then that's fine, but I rather enjoy a full product.

[KDD-0063]

So here are a few of my opinions:

Micro-transactions, imo, are okay by itself and should be reviewed in a case by case scenario.
The bottom line is that it doesn't make free players suffer. Free players definition: players who pay absolutely nothing.

Now in ME3 MP, first there's no PvP; secondly you can get quite good with bottom line, power based characters like Human Sentinel, Adept and Vanguard even if the only thing you have is a rank I predator pistol, so it's generally not so bad.

The unlocking system on the other hand is pretty retarded. Complete RNG based system that allows duplicates. Whether you pay real money or not. In fact I would say paying money for packs is a terrible deal. A pack is about as expensive as a LoL champion (on sale, as I only buy champions with RP on sale) and most of the time you can't get what you want. However whether the MT shop is a terrible deal is not the bottom line. People should just not use it. If something is a bad deal, don't buy it; don't use it. Period.

Of course, the RNG system that makes the MT shop look nice--for every $3 there's a chance (even though negligible) to unlock the thing you want--instead of an MT shop where you need to pay $150 to unlock an ultra-rare weapon you want (it probably will take so many packs) is a problem. I guess people need to know better before paying money for RNG stuff. It's like lottery, or grab machines (worse than that), and you can only get things that have absolutely no real life value.

Modifié par KDD-0063, 14 août 2012 - 11:50 .

[KDD-0063]

Elhanan wrote...

OTOH, if too much content is added as DLC, then that is a lot of features that will not be seen by many Players. if it were included initially as part of the game, or at least the CE versions, then folks will see it, play it, talk about it, etc. Adding it later, no matter how good it is will be seen by fewer clients.

Good luck to them, and us!

This is [crap].
Day 1 gameplay content should obviously be seen by ALL players.

There should be absolutely no gameplay content that is CE exclusive or pre-order exclusive.
Aestheics maybe, soundtrack or art book maybe, SP weapons and items maybe.

but gameplay content released day 1 as a DLC is absolutely unacceptable.

The other excuse by Bioware was even more pathetic.
"They finished the game early so they can start with day 1 DLC."

No. The game was unfinished.

[no swearing, please.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 14 août 2012 - 05:25 .

[naughty99]

M25105 wrote...
It's a freaking Prothean, the race who heavily influenced the world of Mass Effect and we have to pay for it? **** you, plain and simple.

Was From Ashes really that amazing and fun to play? 

I had a lot of fun playing ME3 without it and never felt like I was missing anything. I suppose I might pick it up in the future, bundled with other DLC if there is a GOTY edition, but smaller DLC that adds a new character and a short linear mission simply aren't that attractive to me.

Really doesn't make much difference when DLC is released, as far as my purchase decision goes. I'm more interested in the amount of new content and whether there are any new gameplay features that add to the replay value. It could be Day One or 12 months later, in either case, I usually wait to buy DLC when it is on sale very cheap, or bundled with a GOTY edition.

KDD-0063 wrote...
There should be absolutely no gameplay content that is CE exclusive or pre-order exclusive.
Aestheics maybe, soundtrack or art book maybe, SP weapons and items maybe.

but gameplay content released day 1 as a DLC is absolutely unacceptable.

 

Why is that? Does it make you feel compeled to pre-order when there is some sort of exclusive content, even if the content is small and uninteresting? Also, I don't quite understand why it matters if there is gameplay content in a DLC released at launch vs. much later?  There is a lot of DLC out there that is crappy and boring. And if it's really good, eventually it will go on sale.

Modifié par naughty99, 14 août 2012 - 12:17 .

[Fast Jimmy]

J. Reezy wrote...

M25105 wrote...
Day One DLC, like Javik pisses me off though.

It's a freaking Prothean, the race who heavily influenced the world of Mass Effect and we have to pay for it? **** you, plain and simple.

Day one DLC like Javik is a bonus. His presence is pretty unnecessary.

Who do you feel was more unneccessary - James Vega or Jahvik?

Tali isn't neccessary. She could be dead from the suicide mission in ME2, after all. So could Garrus. And since the VS could have been either Ashley or Kaidan, I guess its pretty unneccesary that either of them be in the game either. 

Why not make them all DLC? Why have any companions at all? Make the stupid fans buy them if they want their stories and want support in combat.

I hope now you see how flimsy of an argument that is. Companions that are integrated into the game, which have a large chunk of lore to share that in unavailable anywhere else should NEVER be paid DLC. To do so is ransoming your story for more money.

[naughty99]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I hope now you see how flimsy of an argument that is. Companions that are integrated into the game, which have a large chunk of lore to share that in unavailable anywhere else should NEVER be paid DLC. To do so is ransoming your story for more money.

Speaking personally, I had zero interest in the Sebastian DLC for DA2, or Zaeed, Kasumi or the From Ashes companion. I suppose I'd have been more interested in DLC that expanded on the story arc of an existing character or provided a lot more content and quests for Shepard or Hawke. The formula of adding one new companion, plus a very short linear mission is just not very appealing. And certainly I have never been interested in any kind of item packs.

Awakenings, Return to Ostagar, Project Overlord and Lair of the Shadow Broker were much more enjoyable as far as DLC goes, but even these never felt like they something were missing from the original game. It was simply additional content that added a bit to the replay value.

For ME3 I think I only used two companions the entire time, Liara and EDI. Perhaps we simply have different approaches to this sort of squad-based game, maybe you only enjoy it if you have a dozen different companions? If that's the case, I'd suggest waiting a year or two after launch and you can buy the ultimate edition on sale with every possible DLC companion.

Modifié par naughty99, 14 août 2012 - 12:39 .

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Why not make them all DLC? Why have any companions at all? Make the stupid fans buy them if they want their stories and want support in combat.

I'm guessing because there would reach a point where pricing issues would lead to a drop in sales, even with added dlc. Convincing people to pay for a single extra character, particularly a Prothean, is more likely to result in success than forcing them to buy an entire cast.

I hope now you see how flimsy of an argument that is. Companions that are integrated into the game, which have a large chunk of lore to share that in unavailable anywhere else should NEVER be paid DLC. To do so is ransoming your story for more money.

This wouldn't really be a new practice, though. Hell, anyone looking to see the end to the Batman arc had to pay an extra ten bucks, in addition to that paid for Batman Begins and the Dark Knight. And that's for seeing the movie only once. In essence, anything you have to pay for is being ransomed, whether it's extra guns, characters, or environments.

[Velocithon]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

 I just want to jump in here for a second. To the people saying that the industry needs money, that the industry is underfunded and needs to find new sources of revenue in microtransactions and day one DLC, or DLC at all, I point you toward three cases: The Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR, and Skyrim.

Now, what's unique about all three of those cases? They were all profitable, they were all critically acclaimed, and they were all respectful enough to not launch with cut content, day one DLC, or short, 10-15 hour game times. And, of course, all three were AAA titles. Two of those games provided free post launch support in the form of additional content added via patches, TW2 and Skyrim. Why, then, can all three of these games, two of which were in development for quite a few years, be so successful? Why isn't Bethesda, CDProjekt Red, or Eidos scrambling to milk their consumers out of every last dime? Why aren't they going bankrupt due to "Piracy" or "Games being too cheap", despite the fact that all three games were hugely popular on the PC, known for it's piracy problems?

Three reasons: First, they were good. Really good. Some of them might not have been your cup of tea but the fact is it is undeniable all three of them were high quality in some or all fields. Quality products (often, but not always) sell. Of course, quality does not guarantee popularity, nor does popularity indicate quality, but a quality product is more likely to sell then a low quality product.

Second, strong management. This industry suffers from a Blight! of mismanagement. Games that should not be green lit are green lit all the time, and publishers are astounded when they don't sell. THQ is currently crawling for it's life because it made a prolonged series of poor management decisions when funding games. A more recent, and tragic, example can be seen in the demise of 38 Studios. Kingdoms of Amalur allegedly sold over a million copies. Over one million copies for a brand new IP, at the end of the console cycle, in a saturated market of high quality RPG's. Surrounded by Skyrim and ME3 it still sold one million copies. In any other case that would be astounding, that would be a breakout success, 38 Studios would be high on life at the moment as they'd be already working on a sequel (DLC). Why did they crumble? Why were so many people suddenly financially screwed? Not because of pirates, not because of overexpensive development costs, but because of mismanagement. The management of 38 Studios decided that they would put so much money into their game that it would need to sell 3 million copies to break even. That is astounding. Whoever was in charge there should never work in this industry again, at least not in a management position. Amalur, no matter how good, was never going to sell 3 million copies. And 38 Studios isn't the only studio suffering from mismanagement. It can be seen in nearly every failed product, publishers who either pushed the developer too hard or not enough (being a publisher in this industry requires hitting a sweet spot between respecting the developers abilities and knowledge and knowing when to put your foot down) and developers who overblew their budget. This isn't to even talk about the millions and millions of dollars spent on marketting. Speaking of marketting costs...

Finally, and perhaps the biggest reason those games did so well, was that they had a dedicated fanbase. Look back at the most successful developers of this industries short history and what do you see? Each and every one of them fostered a die hard community of fans who would take a bullet for them any day. It can never be overstated the power a strong, loyal, large group of dedicated fans can do for your products. CDProjekt has done loads to earn their fans. There's a reason even knee deep in cultures that support piracy the act of illegally downloading The Witcher 2 is so frowned upon. DEHR, months before release, was not very high on most people's radar, and then the game got leaked. All of a sudden fan videos were popping up all over youtube, people were discussing how good it was on video game forums across the internet, and hype built for the game where before there had been only cynicism, for how could a game even come close to the depth of the original Deus Ex in 2011? Skyrim, of course, was helped along by the loyal fans of both TES series and Bethesda in general. Indeed, Skyrim had a large marketing campaign, but the power of those fans in the early days, the content and word of mouth they created, is no doubt a large part of the reason Skyrim reached such a mainstream success, a genre that very rarely sees such sales. And that's the key, word of mouth. You can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing, or you can cut that budget and develop a band of loyal fans who will do that marketing for you for free. Loyal fanbases are a goldmine. They not only buy your game, they sell it for you too! Bioware should know this all too well. DAO sold based on word of mouth generated by the early adopters, early adopters who were familiar with Bioware's name and the high quality product associated with it. A name that over the last two years has become tarnished greatly with disappointment after disappointment.

For an additional example of how a company can become hugely successful, all while treating their consumers with respect, look no further than the juggernaut known as Valve. For years Valve supported TF2 free of charge. They carried this philosophy over to the L4D series, they released numerous updates for the Counter Strike series, and they're challenging the leviathans of the ARTS genre with the upcoming release of DOTA2 by offering all heroes for free, something League of Legends does not do. All the while they've managed to turn huge profits off their games through continued sales of the main product and the most ethical F2P systems you can find in this industry. Critics point to Steam, but Steam, while hugely successful, does not negate the fact that they've managed to both turn a profit from their games alone and treat their consumers with respect by offering free content, quality products, and microtransactions that don't amount to "Pay 2 Win".

So to sum it all up: The argument that the industry is dying, that game development costs too much and developers must find new ways to make money, is nothing more than a scarecrow, put up to defend mismanagement, unethical or shady business practices, and other failings on the part of the developers and publishers. Numerous examples exist debunking this myth, and it's perpetuation only helps the questionable companies continue their practices without change.

Quoting this beacuse I think it's very true.

[RedArmyShogun]

Pretty much with the wal of Text.

Minus Valve personally I find while it has a huge fanbase, it has and does screw folks over, and no I won' get into that on here, it will never stop till a thread lock.

I've seen alot of screaming over VA's, but the fact is most of them don't make that much. On Average its 28 bucks an hour...and it only Averages out like that as the bulk of them make min wage, with a handful of big names making 75 bucks. The CGI artist makes around 50-57k a year, while skilled high level programers tend to make 60-100k a year.

Don't blame the VA's blame that pretty Water.

http://www.ehow.com/...age-salary.html

http://www.ehow.com/...hic-artist.html

http://www.ehow.com/...ice-actors.html

Overpaid and overly pamperd "artists" are where most of the money is going.

Also all of this is basically the same as when the US beats its chest over "human rights" or the "red menace". 

Smoke and mirrors, doom and gloom, you have to buy this, say this, or do this, or it all falls apart.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 14 août 2012 - 01:49 .

[Whatever42]

CDProjekt is a private company. Bethesda is a subsidiary of a private company.

EA is a public company, whose shares compete on a publicly traded exchange. EA must earn a profit which is competitive with other companies. If it does not then its share value declines. When it's share value declines, its capital costs rise, shareholders become unhappy, and employees don't earn bonuses.

So EA and Bioware will very openly pursue profit. Since video game prices have been very sticky for a long period of time, micro transactions seem very logical. This allows you to pay a fixed price for 95% of the content but those who can afford it can pay more for more content. Seems win-win for me. It's certainly preferable to the price of the core games going up $20.

[Cyberarmy]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

 I just want to jump in here for a second. To the people saying that the industry needs money, that the industry is underfunded and needs to find new sources of revenue in microtransactions and day one DLC, or DLC at all, I point you toward three cases: The Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR, and Skyrim.

Now, what's unique about all three of those cases? They were all profitable, they were all critically acclaimed, and they were all respectful enough to not launch with cut content, day one DLC, or short, 10-15 hour game times. And, of course, all three were AAA titles. Two of those games provided free post launch support in the form of additional content added via patches, TW2 and Skyrim. Why, then, can all three of these games, two of which were in development for quite a few years, be so successful? Why isn't Bethesda, CDProjekt Red, or Eidos scrambling to milk their consumers out of every last dime? Why aren't they going bankrupt due to "Piracy" or "Games being too cheap", despite the fact that all three games were hugely popular on the PC, known for it's piracy problems?

Three reasons: First, they were good. Really good. Some of them might not have been your cup of tea but the fact is it is undeniable all three of them were high quality in some or all fields. Quality products (often, but not always) sell. Of course, quality does not guarantee popularity, nor does popularity indicate quality, but a quality product is more likely to sell then a low quality product.

Second, strong management. This industry suffers from a Blight! of mismanagement. Games that should not be green lit are green lit all the time, and publishers are astounded when they don't sell. THQ is currently crawling for it's life because it made a prolonged series of poor management decisions when funding games. A more recent, and tragic, example can be seen in the demise of 38 Studios. Kingdoms of Amalur allegedly sold over a million copies. Over one million copies for a brand new IP, at the end of the console cycle, in a saturated market of high quality RPG's. Surrounded by Skyrim and ME3 it still sold one million copies. In any other case that would be astounding, that would be a breakout success, 38 Studios would be high on life at the moment as they'd be already working on a sequel (DLC). Why did they crumble? Why were so many people suddenly financially screwed? Not because of pirates, not because of overexpensive development costs, but because of mismanagement. The management of 38 Studios decided that they would put so much money into their game that it would need to sell 3 million copies to break even. That is astounding. Whoever was in charge there should never work in this industry again, at least not in a management position. Amalur, no matter how good, was never going to sell 3 million copies. And 38 Studios isn't the only studio suffering from mismanagement. It can be seen in nearly every failed product, publishers who either pushed the developer too hard or not enough (being a publisher in this industry requires hitting a sweet spot between respecting the developers abilities and knowledge and knowing when to put your foot down) and developers who overblew their budget. This isn't to even talk about the millions and millions of dollars spent on marketting. Speaking of marketting costs...

Finally, and perhaps the biggest reason those games did so well, was that they had a dedicated fanbase. Look back at the most successful developers of this industries short history and what do you see? Each and every one of them fostered a die hard community of fans who would take a bullet for them any day. It can never be overstated the power a strong, loyal, large group of dedicated fans can do for your products. CDProjekt has done loads to earn their fans. There's a reason even knee deep in cultures that support piracy the act of illegally downloading The Witcher 2 is so frowned upon. DEHR, months before release, was not very high on most people's radar, and then the game got leaked. All of a sudden fan videos were popping up all over youtube, people were discussing how good it was on video game forums across the internet, and hype built for the game where before there had been only cynicism, for how could a game even come close to the depth of the original Deus Ex in 2011? Skyrim, of course, was helped along by the loyal fans of both TES series and Bethesda in general. Indeed, Skyrim had a large marketing campaign, but the power of those fans in the early days, the content and word of mouth they created, is no doubt a large part of the reason Skyrim reached such a mainstream success, a genre that very rarely sees such sales. And that's the key, word of mouth. You can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing, or you can cut that budget and develop a band of loyal fans who will do that marketing for you for free. Loyal fanbases are a goldmine. They not only buy your game, they sell it for you too! Bioware should know this all too well. DAO sold based on word of mouth generated by the early adopters, early adopters who were familiar with Bioware's name and the high quality product associated with it. A name that over the last two years has become tarnished greatly with disappointment after disappointment.

For an additional example of how a company can become hugely successful, all while treating their consumers with respect, look no further than the juggernaut known as Valve. For years Valve supported TF2 free of charge. They carried this philosophy over to the L4D series, they released numerous updates for the Counter Strike series, and they're challenging the leviathans of the ARTS genre with the upcoming release of DOTA2 by offering all heroes for free, something League of Legends does not do. All the while they've managed to turn huge profits off their games through continued sales of the main product and the most ethical F2P systems you can find in this industry. Critics point to Steam, but Steam, while hugely successful, does not negate the fact that they've managed to both turn a profit from their games alone and treat their consumers with respect by offering free content, quality products, and microtransactions that don't amount to "Pay 2 Win".

So to sum it all up: The argument that the industry is dying, that game development costs too much and developers must find new ways to make money, is nothing more than a scarecrow, put up to defend mismanagement, unethical or shady business practices, and other failings on the part of the developers and publishers. Numerous examples exist debunking this myth, and it's perpetuation only helps the questionable companies continue their practices without change.

Eh, i love you and want to carry your babies (as an orcish male)<3<3

[Costin_Razvan]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

CDProjekt is a private company. Bethesda is a subsidiary of a private company.

EA is a public company, whose shares compete on a publicly traded exchange. EA must earn a profit which is competitive with other companies. If it does not then its share value declines. When it's share value declines, its capital costs rise, shareholders become unhappy, and employees don't earn bonuses.

So EA and Bioware will very openly pursue profit. Since video game prices have been very sticky for a long period of time, micro transactions seem very logical. This allows you to pay a fixed price for 95% of the content but those who can afford it can pay more for more content. Seems win-win for me. It's certainly preferable to the price of the core games going up $20.

CD Projekt is not a private company. I don't know where you got that stupid information from.

 
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. 

I would have to point out that Blizzard is vastly different then Bioware. First off the always online requirement of D3 wasn't done as an idiotic form of DRM rather Diablo III was built in a such a way on an engine level that it uses the online server to render the items, monsters, locations and so on and so forth. The two reasons they didn't change this in singleplayer is that would have: taken time for them to do it and it would have increases sistem requirements for D3 ( I don't buy the whole auction house argument, it's a piece of crap ).

Furthermore Diablo III has no DLC and the RMAH does not compare to the Bioware microtransctions of ME3 simply because while Blizzard does take a cut it's still the player who gets the most money of it and people have been buying and selling gold and characters in WoW for years. Of course my problem is that Blizzard turned out to be a bunch of hypocrites for after crying for years of how gold sellers ruin WoW's ingame economy they decided to facilitate in D3!

On a final note however one can very much count for Blizzard to release post launch content for free.

In regards to microtransactions of ME3, I personally don't see a problem with the way they works: In ME3 multiplayer you have these packs which you can buy for in-game currency that you earn by completing matches or you can buy them for real money, you don't have to since you can unlock everything by just playing normally. Furthermore if through this method we get free DLC I'm willing to accept it.

What I don't like is that free DLC for MP doesn't mean free DLC for SP. We still get BS weapon packs there.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 14 août 2012 - 02:28 .

[Joy Divison]

If Fernando Melo is representative of the mindset from which Bioware operates, that does much to explain why I have had nothing but annoyance and frustration with that company, its games, and its practices for the past two years or so.

Now, lets compare how Bioware operates and studios like CD Projeckt and Besthesda. These companies have not resorted to sleezy tactics to "monetise" (read: gouge) their loyal customers and have managed to release excellent games from which have been resounding commercial successes. CD Projeckt in particular seems to want to accommodate its fanbase.

Melo, fans do not *want* to spend money, they *tolerate* doing so. There is a limit to that tolerance and if you think it's "good business sense" for Day 1 DLC let's just say I'm glad you're not managing my financial portfolio.

[Il Divo]

greengoron89 wrote...

Your courses in economics are of no interest to me or anyone else here who feels like they're getting the short end of the stick in these bleeding microtransactions - explaining how we're getting screwed doesn't change the fact that we're still getting screwed. So please spare us your corporate horse manure, if you will.

The problem with the getting screwed argument is that some act like the gaming industry has done something wrong or unprecedented in the history of consumerism. Movies offer 3D for a few extra dollars, fast food restaurants offer meal deals vs.getting just the sandwhich, accessories to products are often sold separately, etc. The issue isn't that the consumer thinks the deal isn't worth it, but that they act like they haven't been exposed to this in other markets, particularly in areas where they might still be inclined to purchase a product from someone offering the gaming equivalent of "day 1 dlc".

The goal of a company is maximum profit, minimum investment. The consumer has a similar goal at the end of the day. The two are in a constant state of conflict in their efforts to maximize their gain. I get the whole Valve/CDPR craze. Everyone likes free stuff. Hell, Valve is still releasing more TF2 content next week. But I'm not sure why we should be surprised that a company is operating in their own interests, no different than us.

I operate under a straightforward "make what I like" policy. If you produce quality content, I'll buy your products, regardless of dlc. CDPR makes the Witcher 2- I liked it, so I would buy dlc. Bioware makes DA:O- I liked it, so I would buy dlc. It's when the company stops producing quality content that I will simply walk away.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 août 2012 - 02:48 .

[Whatever42]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

CD Projekt is not a private company. I don't know where you got that stupid information from.

Sorry, they did go public last year in a reverse takeover. My stupid information is out of date.

It doesn't change anything, though. I know you kids are upset that you have no money and these games are made by profit-driven companies but you still should be happy with this model. They keep game prices down by offering overpriced optional content so adults with too much money can subsidize your gaming.

Again, this seems like a win-win. I know you're probably too young to rationally consider how the market works and only want what you want righ now but hopefully when you learn more, you'll come to appreciate the approach.

[KnightofPhoenix]

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.

I have a problem with this argument.

While I agree that customers are at least partially responsible, in the sense that they can just stop buying from a company whose practises they dislike.

That said, especially when it comes to ME3 and DA3, we cannot deny that bioware would be exploiting an emotional connection of players who are attached to either or both series. It is perhaps irrational on the part of fans, something I learned the hard way when I pre-ordered DA2 and wasted 70$, but it's a practise I find questionable and more importantly, just not good business in the long run.

All businesses are in it for money, but blatantly exploitative practises (coupled with the questionable quality of their games) is not something I see being sustainable in the long run. At least I hope not.
 
Either way, I am no longer supporting this company, in the sense of pre-ordering or day one buys or must have DLCs. It's going to be on a game to game basis for me, a sizeable duration after release.

[Il Divo]

Nyoka wrote...

Second, most people don't care (because they aren't fans but just customers; I'm not a fan of most games I have. Less than half the purchasers even finished the game) or don't feel like they can do anything because they are just people and EA is a huge multinational business. They know if they don't buy the game, millions will, so it will be for nothing. Pretending like all the power is in the customers' hands, as if the customers were a cohesive entity with an unified will instead of a bunch of scattered, divided individuals which by themselves are nothing compared to EA... frankly, Stan, you know better.

Except it is the collective agreement of consumers which either allows/prevents day 1 dlc. What your complaint is really saying is that the collective will of the consumer differed from what you wanted, which is lamentable, but to be expected. All the power is in the consumers' hands because the goal of the company is to make sales, by appealing to the consumer through a product/service. Collective action influences which companies are most successful or go bankrupt, because it indicates whether a company has successfully appealed to some market.

On an individual basis, no one will ever be able to influence the direction of a company (nor should they). Imagine a company trying to take into account all the individual wants/desires for any product ever made. The results would be catastrophic.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 août 2012 - 03:12 .

[Fast Jimmy]

3D movies are fine. If I wanted some extra skins, or an HD experience with my game, I wouldn't mind shelling out extra money for cosmetic differences.

Never, ever, EVER would you see a book come out that charged extra for an additional character. You would NEVER see a movie come into theaters where one theater is showing a vanilla version of a movie, and a theater right next to it is showing an 'extended' version of the film for extra.

Because video games have the technology and medium to do this more easily does not mean they should, or that fans are somehow naive or silly to give outcry over it.

I would be fine with a mission/quest based DLC on day one. Something like Return to Ostagar would have been good. But to cut out companions for DLC is a horrible model for a number of reasons.

First of all, it sucks. I think I outlined that pretty clearly above.

Second, these characters become bastards of the series. Just ask any Zaeed or Katsumi fan how they feel about how their characters were treated in ME3. Without making them part of the mainstream experience, accounting for their existence is dependent on Bioware creating content for a smaller portion of the market, who likely reflect a tiny fragment of the whole. Bioware has state and shown they do not like making custom content. So these characters, characters which players paid MORE money for, are the MOST likely to be unimportant to the grand scheme of the story.

Third, this is bad because, unlike plot threads, characters cannot be introduced as easily into the process. Which means you have to design major plot points from the start. Which makes it appear (and which it truly is) cut from the main game for profit. Example: Shale and the Anvil of the Void. The conversation you have with Caridain is, obviously, recorded and integrated into the main story. Meaning Shale was a part of that anticipated story and was cut out and sold. However, Return to Ostagar? Completing this DLC does not circle back into the main plot. Wearing Cailain's armor does not influence the Landsmeet, or make Anora more likely to hate you. It is stand alone content and it is made more authentic because of that, as opposed to shallowly cutting out characters that were originally planned to be in the game.

Regardless, those who say this type of marketing is here to stay and there is nothing we, as consumers, can do about it are mistaken. I have no problem paying more money. I am an advocate for $100 games if they are truly worth their price. Therefore, I don't have any problem going to Kickstarter and dropping $50 and then paying full price for the game when it comes out so it doesn't have to resort to shameless and sleazy tactics. I enjoy being viewed as an appreciated customer, not as an easily manipulated piggy bank for these corporate exec types.

[naughty99]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

CDProjekt is a private company. Bethesda is a subsidiary of a private company.

EA is a public company, whose shares compete on a publicly traded exchange. EA must earn a profit which is competitive with other companies. If it does not then its share value declines. When it's share value declines, its capital costs rise, shareholders become unhappy, and employees don't earn bonuses.

So EA and Bioware will very openly pursue profit. Since video game prices have been very sticky for a long period of time, micro transactions seem very logical. This allows you to pay a fixed price for 95% of the content but those who can afford it can pay more for more content. Seems win-win for me. It's certainly preferable to the price of the core games going up $20.

I don't quite follow. Whether a company is private or public, they all must pursue profit, or they will go out of business. The primary purpose of every business is to make money. Different game publishers simply have different approaches. CD Projekt didn't choose to release free DLC packs simply to be nice, they did it because they want people to keep buying their games and become fans of their franchise.

As for micro-transactions, whether you are a fan of that sort of thing or hate it, a game has to be designed in a way where that model makes sense. Most games that generate a lot of revenue from micro transactions have certain kinds of gameplay loops that entice a subset of players to buy virtual items, and usually this sort of game is quite boring in my personal opinion. However, there are a few games that incorporate microtransactions in a way that doesn't detract from the enjoyment of people who don't buy virtual items. ME3 is one of these IMO, as I've never felt inclined to buy any item packs but I still enjoyed the game quite a bit.

Modifié par naughty99, 14 août 2012 - 03:28 .