434 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

PC games got a 20% mark-up just recently.  We paid $50 for DA Origins on release day, $60 for the much smaller and much more craptastic DA2.

[RedArmyShogun]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

Partially true. Not that I dissagree majorly, just pointing out in some cases its greed. Over all however its economic issues. The Dollar has fallen so much (as have almost every other western currency) that things have moved up. Really a crash is the only way out of this in general, and it will hurt alot of people. But the current modle of doing things, prices and living standards can't be kept up.

No things have went up no doubts there, when I was a kid a can drink could be hand for 25 cents, today your lucky to see 50 cents, almost everything has doubled or tripled, it has nothing to do with resources either so much as "growth" litterally tons of material be it games, dvd's clothes, cars, food stuff, its just produced in overly high numbers and mostly never sells. Those dead ends are passed to the consumer...in general its all just about the profit. Kinda why I expect if bad times happen the bulk of the population would die of banditry and the "dog eats dog" mentality pushed in our society.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Il Divo,

A story is NOT a collection of events, characters and narrative styles. It must tell a cohesive series of events with characters that the reader can identify with in some manner and use a consistent narrative style for the reader to comprehend. This isn't a perfect definition of a story, but it is one that works for the same of this argument. 

If I removed Zevran from the story, DA:O would still do this.
If I removed Wynne from the story, DA:O could still do this.
Likewise with Leliana. And Sten. And again with Dog and Oghren.

Hell, in DA:O alone, most of these characters are optional and the player can actively send them away, demonstrating that they are not necessary to understanding the narrative.

Bioware games lend themselves even more to removing characters than a movie, novel, or other game, because most characters don't play any critical plot function. They banter a bit, give you some backstory, and that's really it. Like I said before, I could present you a version of DA:O where Zevran, his conversations, banter, quests, etc, were all removed and you would never have noticed a single dent in your DA:O playthrough.

It's only when all of these items come together that you get a marketable product. You can buy a soft drink and enjoy it on its own. You can buy a burger or a side of fries and eat them alone. You can buy a combo meal, as well. You can't parse out all of the characters in your story and still have a story. 

All of the characters? No, only most of them. As I said, I could present you with a completely coherent version of DA:O that would exclude Dog, Zevran, Oghren, Wynne, Sten, and Leliana. You might not enjoy it as much, but you could still have fun, much like your comparison with single dlc missions.

To keep the food analogy in play, DA:O is a cheeseburger. Alistair and Morrigan are the bread, burger, and cheese, what's critical to the experience. The supporting cast are the condiments; they may enhance the flavor, but are not critical.

So the matter becomes how much CAN you cut into the story and still have it be a good story? This is trimming the fat off the original game and then selling it as bacon, when it should be part of the same meal. It's making a cake that uses flour, sugar and water, all of the ingredients, but then isn't cooked all the way. For an extra $15, we can put it in the oven the rest of the way and give you a fully completed cake.

A better comparison might be eating a cake that tastes slightly less sweet than it could be . The ultimate point is that developers clearly can start cutting a story and still have it remain consistent/quality. I'm sure alot of people love Zevran, but (hypothetically) would they have rejected playing a version of DA:O where the character didn't exist? It's the same process which governs dlc based on new weapons/characters/missions.

Personally, I don't care whether I'm offered a complete product. I care that, once I've invested my $60, I enjoy the hell out of it. If a game is able to do that, should I care whether a character, a mission, or an entire campaign is missing? My favorite game is Dark Souls, for which I paid $60. My enjoyment wouldn't have changed just from the knowledge that there exists/does not exist day 1 dlc.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 août 2012 - 09:39 .

[Rockworm503]

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?

This fall so incredibely flat to me.
It might be the fact that I'm getting updates for a 5 year old game thats full fledged DLC from Valve and haven't payed a cent.
OH I know what they should do.  Just sell HATS!!!!

[termokanden]

Regardless of the economics of it, we can observe that the products are being watered down and connected with microtransaction schemes to the detriment of the gameplay experience. I like to use ME3 is the prime example here, where the gameplay mechanic of character progression is completely wired to maximize profits from their microtransaction scheme.

I'm sure it all makes good economic sense in the short term. But lowering the quality of your products may not be a good choice in the long run. I am actually hoping it isn't. After my poor experiences with them, I want microtransaction schemes to fail, and hopefully good businesses will find another way.

Modifié par termokanden, 14 août 2012 - 09:51 .

[Rockworm503]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

OMG I love you so much right now!!!
I take back every nasty thing I've ever said to you.

[PaulSX]

I am not bothered by micro transactions but I'd rather ME3's MP is a separate f2p online game. I think the multiplayer portion would still be a good game, even if they run it alone.

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo,

I agre and concede that you don't need all or any of the Companions in DA:O aside from Allistair or Morrigan. I also think the game would have been an utter failure without them.

We never get to see Orlais in DA:O. We never get to visit the Qunari homeland. We never get to see Antiva. Do you know why people are clamouring for these locations? The descriptions and vivid detail those companions gave us. For a series that says it is all about the world of Thedas rather than a set character, if they wanted to scrap people falling in love with said world, then, by all means, monetize every companion.

No companion is worth fifteen dollars. It's just not accurate. People will PAY it, sure. But in a game with over half a dozen companions, dozens of locations and dungeons, nearly a hundred quests and plenty of story, no single mission is worth fifteen dollars, either. If you were to parse up the game like that, a companion would be worth MAYBE three bucks. A full fledged mission with new locations would be worth an extra three, maybe. Although I am working off a full retail price, which obviously is inflated for packaging and retail cuts, which it wouldn't be for a downloaded segment.

Bioware has, in my opinion, not made a good base game since DA:O. ME2 was fun, but it had many parts that left a sour taste in my mouth that caused me to not even think about playing more than once, as opposed to ME1, which I played over half a dozen times. DA2 was a much less critically acclaimed game and I believe it critics speak for themselves. And the same goes for ME3.

So if Bioware isn't making good base games anymore, but insisting on charging extra for content that could complete said games, then that is a problem. If DLC is the mountain Bioware wants to die on, they can knock themselves out and become a second rate MMO company, like the legion of F2P games that flood the Internet. If they want to go back to making AAA games that make them stand of as an industry leader, then they need to focus on making a good game first, THEN worry about making extra content if the waters are good. As is, they are constantly churning out mediocre or even bad content that fans are becoming more and more upset with, as the Bioware name that was once associated with the highest quality is being reduced to spamming its consumers with constant content that is being viewed as garbage.

[Velocithon]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

OMG I love you so much right now!!!
I take back every nasty thing I've ever said to you.

I agree. Good post.

[Rockworm503]

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.

Which should've been a pretty clear indication of how terrible the writing was going to be.
A prothean......  Has no use in the story.... And to think that almost talked me out in buying the game 

[Seboist]

Rockworm503 wrote...

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.

Which should've been a pretty clear indication of how terrible the writing was going to be.
A prothean......  Has no use in the story.... And to think that almost talked me out in buying the game 

Yeah, a Prothean Commander being reduced to the role of a private in Shepard's goon squad but yeah, last 10 minutes is where things got bad.

[The Heretic of Time]

Rockworm503 wrote...

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.

Which should've been a pretty clear indication of how terrible the writing was going to be.
A prothean......  Has no use in the story.... And to think that almost talked me out in buying the game 

The worst thing is: Javik was going to play a key role in the ME3 story. In fact, in the original leaked script, Javik himself was the Catalyst!

It's pretty obvious they only turned Javik into a redundant character so they could sell him as a Day-One DLC character. It's all about the $$$ you know.

[Rockworm503]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

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.

In my experience anyone who uses age as a way to make them sound smarter is usually to young to be here.

[Fast Jimmy]

If this is how the AAA gaming industry is heading, then let it burn. It will find out quickly enough how fickle the multiplayer crowd jumps ship and how no one will buy DLC for a game no one wants to play (one need only look at the defunct DA2 Expansion Pack).

I'll make it a point to go to more Kickstarter sites and spend three times as much there as I would protest spending on a Bioware game, simply because of the fact that I will not feel manipulated into doing so. I'd rather line the pockets of guys who are passionate about making games than EA's shareholders any day.

[Seboist]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If this is how the AAA gaming industry is heading, then let it burn. It will find out quickly enough how fickle the multiplayer crowd jumps ship and how no one will buy DLC for a game no one wants to play (one need only look at the defunct DA2 Expansion Pack).

I'll make it a point to go to more Kickstarter sites and spend three times as much there as I would protest spending on a Bioware game, simply because of the fact that I will not feel manipulated into doing so. I'd rather line the pockets of guys who are passionate about making games than EA's shareholders any day.

After seeing the likes of Capcom with their 12 disc-locked character scamming in Street FighterxTekken I'm very close to supporting another VG industry crash.

[Morroian]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

Good post, requoted in its entirety because I note not 1 person has addressed it.

I don't necessarily mind day 1 dlc if it is entirely superfluous but I will say that Jarvik went across my personal line of whats acceptable even if he seems relatively superfluous, Sebastian was fine because he was superfluous and because he was available for free if you pre-ordered. Same with Shale who has free to all new buyers IIRC.

[Fast Jimmy]

I flat out refuse to believe the old model will not work. The problem is the same as the movie industry - they are bloating their budgets year in and out to pay for fancier special effects and not focusing on making a good product.

Battleship tanked. As did John Carter of Earth. Both big budget, major effects, highly marketed movies with actors that you've heard of. But the premise and the plot were garbage.

EA and Activision believe, wrongly, that features that are expensive are simultaneously quality. Cinematics to show a ship landing to preclude a side quest that takes four minutes to complete is assinine. Stripping down conversation choices because your VA budget does not mean you need more money to hire VAs... it means maybe the concept of every side character and yay-hoo in a game needing a recorded voice is maybe not a good one. It means maybe flashy combat animations don't cover up poor level design or crappy AI. It means you can't just hire artists to make your average game suddenly better.

Day One DLC is not the solution. It's just a symptom of the problem.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 août 2012 - 11:30 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Bioware has become frankly pathetic with its business ideals.

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I flat out refuse to believe the old model will not work. The problem is the same as the movie industry - they are bloating their budgets year in and out to pay for fancier special effects and not focusing on making a good product.

Battleship tanked. As did John Carter of Earth. Both big budget, major effects, highly marketed movies with actors that you've heard of. But the premise and the plot were garbage.

You can choose to believe what you wish. The facts show a different story.

What we are seeing is a drop in retailer console game sales overall, not just select big budget affairs. Smaller games are also selling fewer copies year over year. It's one thing if select big budget blockbusters were not selling well, but when the overall number of movie tickets sold goes down year over year, it is indicative that something is wrong with the entire industry and not with just a single studio or genre. When the entire market is depressed and continues to lose sales overall, it is an indicator that it is the market itself that is ailing.

[Elhanan]

greengoron89 wrote...

Pulling the "all businesses exist to make money" card and giving people a course on economics is a pretty half-assed way to deflect criticism. There was a time when developers were comprised of genuine artists who had their head less in the business side of things and more in the actual creative process. Publishers took care of the business end by marketing the final product to the general public, and if the product and sales were good, everyone walked away with money in their wallet.

And guess what? It's still that way a good chunk of the time - but somewhere in this gigantic *** of a situation we all find ourselves in, it seems like someone decided that the business end was ALL that mattered, and artistry is just an afterthought. The result is watered down swill like Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 (and 2 to an extent), which were custom tailored to this "business model" you people have built. You designed the games around this scheme, and in the process lost any semblance of having been a developer committed to making excellent games.

Your head is in the business, and the business alone - I'd say your methods stifle the creativity of your employees, but if that were the case they wouldn't be working for you, so I can only assume they're on-board with your business plan. And boy let me tell you, it shows. So welcome to the big time - your games are now nothing but the RPG equivalent of EA Sports franchises. I can't wait for the next annual title which is nearly indistinguishable from the last.

Sorry, but your opinion on ME3 and DA2 as non-artistic offerings does not trump logical reasoning that all BW offerings were made to aquire finanial success.

[Gatt9]

Morroian wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

Good post, requoted in its entirety because I note not 1 person has addressed it.

I don't necessarily mind day 1 dlc if it is entirely superfluous but I will say that Jarvik went across my personal line of whats acceptable even if he seems relatively superfluous, Sebastian was fine because he was superfluous and because he was available for free if you pre-ordered. Same with Shale who has free to all new buyers IIRC.

It is a good post,  but I'm afraid I have to disagree with it.

The post makes two critical assumptions that I argue make his conclusion incorrect.

-First,  it assumes that the present quality and diversity of games is equivalent to what was present in the past.  This isn't true.  The current business plan is to release endless sequels to shooters,  while abandoning pretty much all other genres (Except Action-Adventure).  Quality has dropped,  new IP's are virtually non-existant,  and diversity is virtually non-existant.  Even if you contrast this to the PS2 era or PSx era,  you can see this.  Especially if you consider the big names from those platforms,  more than a few of which were in the now "Taboo" non-shooter genres (Resident Evil,  Final Fantasy 7,  Fable,  etc)

-Second,  it assumes that team sizes must be of the current trend in order to make a modern video game.  This is again false.  You don't need every line of dialogue voiced,  Final Fantasy 7 doesn't have any voiced dialogue and it's *still* selling today.  Nor do you need the latest whizz-bang graphics,  Minecraft has sold more units than any of Bioware-EA's recent releases.  At least 10 million in sales.  Great games sell great.  The issue isn't that modern games need massive expenses,  it's that Publishers perceive extremely expensive non-gameplay assets like voice-overs and cut-scenes to be mandatory.

The problem isn't the traditional model at all,  it's the current business plan.  Publishers refuse to do anything but chase after last year's blockbuster,  and are forcing every game to become a Shooter.  It's fatiguing gamers,  they're getting bored of shooters,  and they're slowly ceasing purchasing them.  Just like the reality TV glut ended up killing off almost all reality TV shows. 

The publishers don't want to admit that,  no one wants to go into a meeting and say "You know,  I don't think chasing Call of Duty and Gears of War is the way to go,  I think we should diversify",  because the CEO's don't want to hear anything other than "We've got the next Call of Duty!  We'll be reporting 1.5 billion in sales next quarter!". 

The Industry,  especially the Publishers,  have a Blockbuster mentality,  where the only thing that matters is selling vast numbers of units with each release.  This is in contrast to the Hollywood mentality,  where you diversify and budget by historical sales in the genres,  and then profit hugely on a breakout title while still retaining good revenue on the average selling ones.

The Industry is unhealthy,  and it is unsustainable,  but it's because the Industry isn't doing anything but making shooters and chasing after blockbusters.  It's trying to use anti-consumer revenue initiatives to disguise the fact that it's unhealthy,  and it's blockbuster mentality is causing it to collapse.

OMG I love you so much right now!!!
I take back every nasty thing I've ever said to you.

Thanks!  We should be Frenemies!

Gatt, you're full of BS here I have to say. Javik is completely and utterly useless. He has nothing critical to say. The only thing remotely relevant he has to say is on Sanctuary, and that isn't even relevant to te main plot--it's only relevant to Liara

Then you didn't play the game.  He has several banters with party members,  one of the larger ones being a conversation on the crew deck in the kitchen.  Which strongly indicates he was recorded at the same time as all of the other voice actors.  Either this whole exchange was written from the start,  and recorded when the actors were in the studio,  or Bioware-EA brought voice actors back in the last 4 weeks to record new dialogue.  Do you really think Bioware brought back all of the voice actors he has banter with in the last 4 weeks as they claimed?  Or do you think it was all recorded at the same time the voice actors were in the studio in the course of development of the main game?

[Costin_Razvan]

Then you didn't play the game. He has several banters with party members, one of the larger ones being a conversation on the crew deck in the kitchen. Which strongly indicates he was recorded at the same time as all of the other voice actors. Either this whole exchange was written from the start, and recorded when the actors were in the studio, or Bioware-EA brought voice actors back in the last 4 weeks to record new dialogue. Do you really think Bioware brought back all of the voice actors he has banter with in the last 4 weeks as they claimed? Or do you think it was all recorded at the same time the voice actors were in the studio in the course of development of the main game?

Voice Actors record dialogue separately, not together. It is obvious however that they did record those lines from the very beginning, but they did record a LOT of stuff they didn't actually use.

[DukeOfNukes]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

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.

Amen...to everything you said...not just the final paragraph.

The whole "That's capitalism for you" argument doesn't work. We regulate industry. We pass laws against monopolies and unethical business practice's all the time. The argument that industries self-regulate has been proven false time and time again. The argument here isn't "is this the reality of our situation?", the questions are "is this ethical?" and "is there a better way?"