Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.
But this tells me that movies didn't make you pay extra for one particular feature (extra scenes) vs. another (3D).
For the argument to work, we need to offer some reason why a character is somehow a different level of greed than paying for HD or for fries and a drink at McDonald's.
From a formal logic perspective, there's no difference between the two:
X = Some product.
Y= Some accessory.
Z= X + Y = package of the two together
No matter what you sub in here, be it a character, feature, or fries and a shake, you're led to the same point: you pay more to get more.
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.
But along with Grunt, Jack, Jacob, and Samara. ME2 was actually the most easily implemented example of this because the player was recruiting for a suicide mission. Admittedly, neither Zaeed nor Kasumi have a recruitment, but their additions to the squad didn't stand out as far as awkward introductions into the story, since the basic premise was: recruit an army of bad-asses. The criticism of shafting a character hasn't been demonstrated to be dlc-focused, since a significant number of ME2 characters were shafted and even looking at DA2, not every DA:O character was introduced into the story (Ex: Do we ever see Wynne, Oghren, or Morrigan again?)
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.
Fair point, but there are still a good number of characters who were included in the original who can easily be altered as dlc, with minimal impact into most Bioware games. Just look at a character like Zevran who is sent to kill you. Easily adapted to a dlc format.
No dlc: Zevran automatically dies after combat finishes and player discovers a note on his body explaining Loghain is responsible.
With dlc: the PC gets that original conversation with Zevran and given the option to spare his life and take him along.
Javik is another example of this. So isn't this more an implementation issue than anything else? Creating a seamless experience for the player?
Edit: And just to point out, alot of posts in here would indicate the problem isn't implementation but the need to have the "full experience". Not to say this is your point, but it does draw attention to the idea that it's not just a question of characters vs. single missions.
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.
That could potentially work. The question is: are enough people willing to support such a model as to make it profitable?
Modifié par Il Divo, 14 août 2012 - 03:58 .
Retour en haut
