434 réponses à ce sujet

[Velocithon]

naughty99 wrote...

EA's share price hasn't exactly "gone down year after year." It dropped significantly during the crash of 2008, along with thousands of other publicly traded companies, then it's been up and down since that time.

And it hasn't gone up a single bit in 4 years; it's nearly a flat line. From 2000-2008 it saw steady growth, with a bloop in 2003. Then 2008 happened and these shifty buisness practices started gaining ground. It isn't coincidence.

Modifié par Velocithon, 14 août 2012 - 06:34 .

[Elhanan]

Velocithon wrote...

And it hasn't gone up a single bit in 4 years; it's nearly a flat line. From 2000-2008 it saw steady growth, with a bloop in 2003. Then 2008 happened and these shifty buisness practices started gaining ground. It isn't coincidence.

Of course global economics had nothing to do with this either....

[Velocithon]

Elhanan wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

And it hasn't gone up a single bit in 4 years; it's nearly a flat line. From 2000-2008 it saw steady growth, with a bloop in 2003. Then 2008 happened and these shifty buisness practices started gaining ground. It isn't coincidence.

Of course global economics had nothing to do with this either....

Oh please. Sure, it doesn't help. But people still buy games. It isn't the only factor here.

[Elhanan]

Velocithon wrote...

Oh please. Sure, it doesn't help. But people still buy games. It isn't the only factor here.

As opposed to "shady business practices"? No expert, but my case is easier to prove with evidence..

[Ninja Stan]

Velocithon wrote...

And that is what's wrong here. They know people don't like it, but it gets them money so they don't care. Money > happy fans.

They know some people don't like it, but they "don't care" because the number of "happy fans" who enjoy the service more than justify the expense. The service is not intended to please everyone all the time, only a subsection of the fanbase who want extra content. If you are not part of that subsection, then rest assured that you will not be forced to purchase anything you don't want to. If you still really want the content, but don't want to pay for it, well, that's a different discussion. If you feel you need the content in order to have some kind of mythical "complete game experience," well then, that's entirely on you. You, as a consumer, always have the choice to buy or not buy.

Microtransactions do not offer nearly as much game content as a single time DLC does, but is immensely overpriced in terms of content to cost ratio. It would make more sense if these microtransactions cost like 25 cents. I'm sorry, a PSP costing 320 MSP is just insanity. That **** should be 50 cents a pop MAX.

Then when you present your cost-benefit analysis to the project team, you can add that to your recommendations. As it stands, you don't have the numbers needed to accurately gauge margins, but the developers and publisher do, and they use that information to determine the price of the products being offered. If you feel the content is not worth the price, you can exercise your power to choose to not buy. It is entirely EA's (or retailer's) prerogative to determine the selling price of a product.

[hoorayforicecream]

Velocithon wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

And it hasn't gone up a single bit in 4 years; it's nearly a flat line. From 2000-2008 it saw steady growth, with a bloop in 2003. Then 2008 happened and these shifty buisness practices started gaining ground. It isn't coincidence.

Of course global economics had nothing to do with this either....

Oh please. Sure, it doesn't help. But people still buy games. It isn't the only factor here.

Fewer people are buying console games year over year. It's a noted trend. Saying that people still buy games is true, but they are buying fewer games than they used to, and that ultimately hurts the company's revenue and thus profitability.

Without steady growth or steady profits, investors find little incentive to keep their shares of EA stock when they could put it into something else like an index fund that grows at a steady rate, or pays dividends.

The traditional retail model for games is starting to break down. The costs of development, distribution, and marketing is outpacing the revenues, and it's becoming too risky. This is why there's such a sudden push for things like digital distribution, paid DLC, and microtransactions. The publishers are desperately searching for new ways to provide service/product for money, because the current model isn't sustainable in the long run. The most successful companies right now are sustaining themselves with these sorts of revenue streams (Valve, for example, publishes 90% of the digital games on PC, *and* makes millions from microtransactions).

Returning to the old model won't really work. There's no more room for a 2-million selling game to be called a huge success, unless they reduce the costs (CDPR is located in a nation where software engineers are paid $15-20k USD annually) or the development time (DA2), unless they find alternate revenue streams where players are willing to pay for more efficient-to-develop content like DLC.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 14 août 2012 - 07:08 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Stan,

Not trying to be antagonistic, but no fan is happy with saying 'Wow, a cool new character that has been designed to be in the game for the past year, but marketing said people would pay money for it, so they're going to charge me! Yay!'

Which is very much what Melo seems to indicate in the article you linked, that research into what players most enjoy is what determines what is made DLC and what isn't. Jahvik could have been a great peace offering to sell to fans in the afterglow of the nuclear crater that was ME3's release. Heck, if they gave it away for free, it would have been even better. But since it was released Day One, it comes off as sleazy, cheap and a tease to those of us who don't buy any DLC at all, out of principle.

If Bioware was smart, they'd plan Week 3 DLC, when sales begin coming down after their initial boom. Tacked on as a way to increase Pre-orders from fans who were going to be buying it the first two weeks anyway does nothing to help sales, Bioware's image, or interest in the game.

I still wouldn't like it (or buy it) but it would keep a sizeable amount of egg from the corporate face. And it would give you a stand-by olive branch or jump start if the launch doesn't go as planned.

Regardless, Story or Character Day One DLC is going to be outcried evey time. And it's not just because us plebeian gamers are whiny and entitled - it's just not smart business.

[Addai]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Chris Preistly in another thread has suggested reading this article for more information.

What I would like to know is if our purchase of DA Origins as a new game, which included The Stone Prisoner and Warden's Keep for free- if that deal that was no doubt available to others at the time as well is being used as proof that people like day-one DLC and buy it.  I repeat, we got that DLC when we installed Origins, but it came free with new purchase of the game.

And much as the company thinks it can normalize these practices, forget it.  You've tried to do it by first making DLC free with new purchase of the game (Origins), then making it available only as part of a Signature Edition ordered long before the release date (DA2), to ME3.  Are people making more or less noise about the practice now than they were before?

PC players also haven't forgotten that these microtransactions come after Bioware stopped offering mod support that would make them obsolete.

Modifié par Addai67, 14 août 2012 - 07:27 .

[Ninja Stan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Stan,

Not trying to be antagonistic, but no fan is happy with saying 'Wow, a cool new character that has been designed to be in the game for the past year, but marketing said people would pay money for it, so they're going to charge me! Yay!'

The information is out there for all to see. There is nothing underhanded or "shady" about it, which is the argument some people in this thread are making. The terms and conditions of purchase are out there for consumers to digest and act on, as they wish.

Which is very much what Melo seems to indicate in the article you linked, that research into what players most enjoy is what determines what is made DLC and what isn't. Jahvik could have been a great peace offering to sell to fans in the afterglow of the nuclear crater that was ME3's release. Heck, if they gave it away for free, it would have been even better. But since it was released Day One, it comes off as sleazy, cheap and a tease to those of us who don't buy any DLC at all, out of principle.

"Principle" is all well and good, and a convenient foundation on which to build opposition until the content is something you feel you want. Some folks who object to DLC "on principle" want everyone to share those principles, and insult, belittle, and dismiss those who disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with opposing DLC, day 1 DLC, and/or microtransactions. But if the gist of your principle is "I'm against paying for DLC, but I waaaaaaaaaants it so muuuuuuuuuch!" (as it appears to be in some cases here), that's a different discussion.

If Bioware was smart, they'd plan Week 3 DLC, when sales begin coming down after their initial boom. Tacked on as a way to increase Pre-orders from fans who were going to be buying it the first two weeks anyway does nothing to help sales, Bioware's image, or interest in the game.

The actual sales numbers and interest in the game, according to Fernando, would very solidly prove otherwise. "BioWare's image" is, as always, subjective to the whims of the community and can be based on anything from legitimate issues to wild conspiracy theories. Again, as is appears to be in some cases here.

I still wouldn't like it (or buy it) but it would keep a sizeable amount of egg from the corporate face. And it would give you a stand-by olive branch or jump start if the launch doesn't go as planned.

A perceived slight from some players does not mean that a slight has actually occurred, especially when dealing with "The Boy Who Cried "Ripoff"", as happens with far too much regularity in this community. Also, as I am no longer with the company, using "you" to refer to me and BioWare is incorrect.

Regardless, Story or Character Day One DLC is going to be outcried evey time. And it's not just because us plebeian gamers are whiny and entitled - it's just not smart business.

Again, despite your feelings on the matter, the ideas espoused by Fernando in the IGN article would seem to prove otherwise.

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If Bioware was smart, they'd plan Week 3 DLC, when sales begin coming down after their initial boom.

Week 3 DLC won't sell as well as Week 2 DLC, which won't sell as well as Day 1 DLC.

After three weeks, many users will have completed the game and moved on.

[Velocithon]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

And that is what's wrong here. They know people don't like it, but it gets them money so they don't care. Money > happy fans.

They know some people don't like it, but they "don't care" because the number of "happy fans" who enjoy the service more than justify the expense.

You say there are happy fans, but why is it in every single article which talks about these issues, the overwhelming majority of people vocally despise it, and those few for it get downvoted to kingdom come?

Just because people use the service doesn't mean they are happy. They're just begrudgingly following along. Obviously, they shouldn't if they dislike it, but that's a different argument. 

You strike me as a guy whose line of thinking is "they can do it, and it works for them, so let them do it" without sitting back and saying "ok...this is a pretty cheapass thing to do. Maybe they shouldn't do it". 

Modifié par Velocithon, 14 août 2012 - 08:49 .

[devon c greenwell]

So to be a pain in the button here, day one dlc code was in the game already. Ok. Then they gave us EC for free. Any one know what was in its code? Leviathan. How bout the fire fight dlc? Files labled as. omg. Any guessers? Omega. So to include part to a game, like a hi rise since I'm in construction, to make it easier to add on and not affect final product is to hide the parts to add on to. Makes it easier to add 5 floors as I'm sure that it makes it easier to add weapons, mode, people, etc. So get off there case about cheating people out of money. They, just like you, need to make a profit to survive. Not saying I like it, but life's not fair. And stain, IGN puts some in rage mode cause some say that they suck. Just bit of advice. I got torn apart for linking IGN and that they said leviathan changes the ending. Just looking out for you. Why? Cause the man has a JOB to do that earns him money, or a profit.

Modifié par devon c greenwell, 14 août 2012 - 08:53 .

[KDD-0063]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If Bioware was smart, they'd plan Week 3 DLC, when sales begin coming down after their initial boom.

Week 3 DLC won't sell as well as Week 2 DLC, which won't sell as well as Day 1 DLC.

After three weeks, many users will have completed the game and moved on.

Right. I almost forgot.

[Velocithon]

greengoron89 wrote...

@Velocithon - Your mistake is thinking vocal disapproval counts somehow - it does not. What counts is money (see what I did there?) - at the end of the day, the only sound that matters is "cha-ching!", and not some disgruntled fan going off on a rant about the plot holes in ME3's ending.

Well yeah that's obvious. However it still shows that's it's not popular. No one likes school, but we all go anyhow. (bad example but still)
 You gotta vote with your wallet threads like this is all about spreading awareness. 

Modifié par Velocithon, 14 août 2012 - 08:57 .

[RedArmyShogun]

greengoron89 wrote...

@Velocithon - Your mistake is thinking vocal disapproval counts somehow - it does not. What counts is money (see what I did there?) - at the end of the day, the only sound that matters is "cha-ching!", and not some disgruntled fan going off on a rant about the plot holes in ME3's ending.

You should also keep in mind generally forum goers are seen as the nerdy minority that always ****es no matter what. There is no respect for the forum usser as they are honestly a rather small part of the market.

[legion999]

devon c greenwell wrote...

So to be a pain in the button here, day one dlc code was in the game already. Ok. Then they gave us EC for free. Any one know what was in its code? Leviathan. How bout the fire fight dlc? Files labled as. omg. Any guessers? Omega. So to include part to a game, like a hi rise since I'm in construction, to make it easier to add on and not affect final product is to hide the parts to add on to. Makes it easier to add 5 floors as I'm sure that it makes it easier to add weapons, mode, people, etc. So get off there case about cheating people out of money. They, just like you, need to make a profit to survive. Not saying I like it, but life's not fair

I hate this term. You know who life isn't fair for? A kid born in some third world **** hole who will likely be orphaned before the age of three. Some poor bastard born with a crippling illness. Their lives aren't fair. Justifying these business practices with: “lifes not fair", detracts from those who are actually suffering.

[Maria Caliban]

greengoron89 wrote...

If the previous business model is unsustainable, then perhaps the industry should just crash a la 1983 - because as things are now, I'm giving most of you corporate hacks the finger and either jumping on different bandwagon or quitting gaming altogether (probably won't be necessary - plenty of other companies don't exhibit the high level of greed you folks do).

Given that I like games and I think the average developer is just a regular person trying to pay their bills, as opposed to a 'corporate hack,' I'd rather not see an industry crash.

When I was young, two adults could go to the movies for eight dollars, gas was under a dollar a gallon, and video games were about sixty dollars. Now two adults cost twenty-four dollars to go to the movies, gas is $3.89 a gallon, and a video game is... about sixty dollars.

That tells me right there why video game publishers are looking for alternate ways to make money. They can't do what the vast majority of entertainment media has done and just double the price of a game.

[Rockworm503]

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.

LOL

[RedArmyShogun]

Actully Movies are like 5 bucks a person here 7 at night, 3d films are like 10. So thats just mark ups in your area.

[Chromie]

[inappropriate comment removed]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 14 août 2012 - 09:31 .

[Beerfish]

War, war never changes.

Just like the famous fall out line consumerism never changes. You buy a product or you don't. Companies practices are either successful or they are not. If consumers were not eating up this new method of doing things companies would not be following that model. Goodness knows there are a LOT of business practices from a wide variety of companies in this world that have become the 'norm' in which people don't complain about much any more. This is just the latest.

[Morroian]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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 ).

You're drinking the Blizzard kool aid, what they did with D3 is far more odious than anything Bioware has done.   

[Maria Caliban]

Confess-A-Bear wrote...

Actully Movies are like 5 bucks a person here 7 at night, 3d films are like 10. So thats just mark ups in your area.

Okay: Gas, bread, magazines, books (paper and hardbacks), comics, and videotapes vs DVDs.

Even if the mark-up in my area is extra high, there's still been price hike in a large number of goods over the last few decades, one that video games hasn't benefited from.