512 réponses à ce sujet

[Ninja Stan]

Tipsyfresh wrote...

@ ninja
Its not news that when a person invests in something they are more likely to keep investing in it even if it's not the most rational plan, see poker strategies etc.

That's why it's hard to just leave it at "purchase or not purchase". Especially when they own the game already. And that goes double for a sequel or trilogy. So you don't have to make fun of people by saying "magic wallet opener" and whatnot. And marketing exist for one reason, to convince the consumer to buy, so as a matter of fact you do have a magic wallet opener, a really really good one.

All that means is that the marketing department is doing a good job, not that your freedoms are being infringed upon. It's like your friends convincing you to see a certain movie or your significant other dragging you off to the opera. If you eventually cave in to their wishes, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to choose. It means that the "marketing" (ie. the encouragement of others, the desire to be a good guy, or whatever reason) works. But don't get me wrong. You are still making a choice, whether it's an active choice like declaring you're going to purchase, or a passive one like paying for an ongoing subscription.

As for magic wallet openers, there are some products that make me want to say "shut up and take my money." I am still exercising my choice, and still damning those stoopid, stoopid marketers for making me want the products so damn much.

[Mclouvins]

The fact that the year-over-year change in the base cost of games has been 0% for what eight years now is a miracle in and of itself. While it may be technically true that day one dlc could be put on disks is probably often immaterial. When budget lines are drawn said content may very well only be approved on the basis of providing a return through sales. It actually provides more consumer discretion than a normal year-over-year price increase would they way it does for just about everything else. You can blame it on EA all you want but that just pettifogs the issue. Businesses all work to at the very least retain stable return margins and as such pass the cost of doing business along, much of which is development costs that are continually increasing. It's not right or wrong, however it is the reality of the situation.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

As a customer, you are, in fact, a cash cow that a company wishes to milk in order to get more money. This is the case regardless of the industry involved, and at no time do you have to submit to that milking. You have every right to choose to not be milked. Jutt say "no, I won't purchase that product at that price" and you will have exercised your power and responsibility in spades. Done. Both you and the company have fulfilled your job descriptions and the world turns.

Take a look at this and UNDERSTAND, people.

It's a business.

It's. A. Business.

Just because you're a business, you're still allowed to treat your fans with a little respect when it comes to this stuff. Having such an important character as day-1 DLC is not very respectful, and won't benefit you in the long run.

[ManUnderMask]

casamar wrote...
Extra Credtis made an entire episode about this specific piece of DLC. It's worth a watch

Good video, but I'm getting tired of people making wild predictions about the direction of DLC. Take his only getting Legion with a new copy of Dante's Inferno for example. "This is where I see it going" he says.

EXCEPT HE REMOVED THE CONSUMER COMPLETELY FROM THE EQUATION.

Every time I watch a video or read anything about DLC, the prophet of video games' future always leaves out the consumer.

Very few people would spend an extra 60 bucks on a game they don't want in order to get a single DLC character or any DLC at all. It's the same reason why the next gen consoles won't have a used game lockout. But that doesn't sound sexy and destructive as "What if they put Legion as a DLC character who can only be unlocked if you buy a brand new copy of Dante's Inferno, because this is where I see it going." DOOM! DOOOOOOM!!

Modifié par ManUnderMask, 14 août 2012 - 08:12 .

[Ninja Stan]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

There's a difference between something that's interesting, and what BW offered at the release of ME3. The Day-1 DLC for ME3 contained information about the backstory of the entire Mass Effect trilogy, that was nowhere to be found in the base game.

Gives the players something they want. Advertises content they may not ever get otherwise. The marketing worked (hooray for the company!). The base game still works from start to finish without it (hooray for the consumer!).

Again, BW had every hardcore fan of the franchise by the balls with that DLC because of the content. Since this is the no spoiler forum, I can't say much more than that.

In order to convince people to buy it, BioWare developed content that people would want to buy, thereby giving them what they want. I'm still not seeing how that's a bad thing or at what point the player's choice is compromised.

[Shortened]

 In my opinion, the only way that Day 1 DLC should be done is that if it comes with brand new copies of the games or Collector edition games. Although this DLC should also be available for people at a cost who get the game used/lent/other methods of obtaining a game that's not new.

[Tipsyfresh]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Tipsyfresh wrote...

Plus it sounds like you may know that some dlc isn't worth the purchase but you put it out anyway. (not u personally but just the industry in general)

The notion of value is subjective. A company doesn't "know that some DLC isn't worth the purchase price." Whether a gamer feels the DLC is "worth the purchase price" is completely up to the individual making the choice. This is the disconnect I'm having with some of my opponents in this discussion..

I beleive that some users have forgotten that one aspect of buying something is the assumption of risk, risk that you won't enjoy what you've bought or risk that you will feel like you've made a bad choice. There is never a guarantee that you will enjoy something or get the value out of it that you want. But once again, that's not the company's fault. They have a product and are selling it at a certain price. The consumer, ultimately, makes the purchasing decision. Always.

Thanks for keeping the conversation going!    I'm frugal so after I buy something I usually don't like to pay more for those same things. Video games are a way for me to experience someone else's vision, if the vision is incomplete and you need dlc to finish it (dlc for the story) then you sold me an incomplete product. 

[Reznore57]

Can people really justify Day One DLC with there's a demand and offer kind of stuff?
And actually companies do have plan and are train to sell stuff.
I worked at selling stuff via telephone and you had to learn some techniques.Like speaking really fast when asking card number.
That's why microtransaction via the net have to be simple , to not give the client time to think and buy on impulse.

We , as customers , do not go to schools to learn how to buy properly ...

And selling a game in kit on the day of release is , I don't know , kind of rude?
I pay for day one DLC , i do not approve , I would not approve to go to the movie and learn that 20 minutes have been cut from the movie and i have to pay some extras.
Or buy a book and see that i have to buy for extra chapters....

And again As far as content goes , multiplayer micro transaction , or weapon DLC are a rip off ,
DLC , I think (i'm not sure) may cost more than an expansion , and i see nothing but benefit for the developper ...it 's sold via internet ..no material copies , not available in stores.
Hell ,EA is thinking about stopping material copies ...From what i see microtransaction via internet might become their ultimate goal.

We'll see how it goes ,but i'm not sure that keeping on with this type of things is something to be proud of...

I won't be buying ME3 DLC ...Far too disapointed , and not just about the game.
I bought everything DA2 (even those stupid weapon pack ) because i wanted to be supportive to the franchise.
I'm not so sure i will keep on doing that for DA3 , we'll see.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

There's a difference between something that's interesting, and what BW offered at the release of ME3. The Day-1 DLC for ME3 contained information about the backstory of the entire Mass Effect trilogy, that was nowhere to be found in the base game.

Gives the players something they want. Advertises content they may not ever get otherwise. The marketing worked (hooray for the company!). The base game still works from start to finish without it (hooray for the consumer!).

Again, BW had every hardcore fan of the franchise by the balls with that DLC because of the content. Since this is the no spoiler forum, I can't say much more than that.

In order to convince people to buy it, BioWare developed content that people would want to buy, thereby giving them what they want. I'm still not seeing how that's a bad thing or at what point the player's choice is compromised.

This is going nowhere. I totally understand your point, and I totally understand that Bioware are allowed sell whatever they want as day-1 DLC. 

What I don't understand, is why BW feels that having such an important character for the backstory of the Mass Effect universe is totally cool to the fans. Again, why not Vega? Why not a certain female robot?! There were so many other options, and yet, they chose to go with one as important as Javik. It makes NO sense to me, that a character like that gets pushed aside as day-1 DLC, when some of the other ones came with the base game. 

You don't see any other game companies taking out such important stuff out of the game. Most devs just stick to extra missions and weapons, and you know what, people still buy it. 

You release an less important extra side mission on day-1. Gives the players something they want. Advertises content they may not ever get otherwise. The marketing worked (hooray for the company!). The base game still works from start to finish without it (hooray for the consumer!). 

[Ninja Stan]

Tipsyfresh wrote...

Thanks for keeping the conversation going!    I'm frugal so after I buy something I usually don't like to pay more for those same things. Video games are a way for me to experience someone else's vision, if the vision is incomplete and you need dlc to finish it (dlc for the story) then you sold me an incomplete product. 

If that is the case, then that is entirely on your end. There is nothing a company can do to convine you otherwise if they wish to use the base game + periodic DLC model, because at that point, it's obvious their "vision" will be something you can't accept. Sorry.

[Atakuma]

scyphozoa wrote...

I think Shale and Zaeed are good examples of Day 1 DLC that people didn't get as offended by as From Ashes.

The fact that Protheans were such a mysterious and powerful species in the ME universe, people feel like it is too important not to be included in the vanilla game (I don't).  No one ever said that Shale or golems were too valuable of lore in the Dragon Age series not to be included in the vanilla game. No one thought Zaeed was an integral part of ME2. People still complained about both of those DLCs too, but not nearly as much as From Ashes. I think Bioware needs to find that sweet spot for Day 1 DLC that is interesting enough to be worth buying, but not so interesting that people feel like it should be included in the vanilla game.

If From Ashes had been free with the purchase of a new game, like Shale and Zaeed, then I wouldn't have any complaints. 

[Ninja Stan]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

This is going nowhere. I totally understand your point, and I totally understand that Bioware are allowed sell whatever they want as day-1 DLC. 

What I don't understand, is why BW feels that having such an important character for the backstory of the Mass Effect universe is totally cool to the fans. Again, why not Vega? Why not a certain female robot?! There were so many other options, and yet, they chose to go with one as important as Javik. It makes NO sense to me, that a character like that gets pushed aside as day-1 DLC, when some of the other ones came with the base game. 

It's a circular argument you're making. Why does BioWare feel the need to create something like the Javik DLC, since it's so important to the story? To encourage people to buy the DLC.

Why not any other content? Because players will probably be more interested in content involving Javik.

[Ozzy]

scyphozoa wrote...

I think Shale and Zaeed are good examples of Day 1 DLC that people didn't get as offended by as From Ashes.

The fact that Protheans were such a mysterious and powerful species in the ME universe, people feel like it is too important not to be included in the vanilla game (I don't).  No one ever said that Shale or golems were too valuable of lore in the Dragon Age series not to be included in the vanilla game. No one thought Zaeed was an integral part of ME2. People still complained about both of those DLCs too, but not nearly as much as From Ashes. I think Bioware needs to find that sweet spot for Day 1 DLC that is interesting enough to be worth buying, but not so interesting that people feel like it should be included in the vanilla game.

Zaeed and Shale were offered completely free of charge (provided you bought a new copy, of course) so it's a bit of a different situation. It's interesting though that both sequels (ME3 & DA2) had Day 1 DLC companions that you had to pay for whereas their prequels did not. 
I'm just just hoping that this trend definitely does not continue but it seems to be a favourable model of their's now. 

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

This is going nowhere. I totally understand your point, and I totally understand that Bioware are allowed sell whatever they want as day-1 DLC. 

What I don't understand, is why BW feels that having such an important character for the backstory of the Mass Effect universe is totally cool to the fans. Again, why not Vega? Why not a certain female robot?! There were so many other options, and yet, they chose to go with one as important as Javik. It makes NO sense to me, that a character like that gets pushed aside as day-1 DLC, when some of the other ones came with the base game. 

It's a circular argument you're making. Why does BioWare feel the need to create something like the Javik DLC, since it's so important to the story? To encourage people to buy the DLC.

Why not any other content? Because players will probably be more interested in content involving Javik.

I get that. All I'm saying is that there's interesting content that expands the universe, and then there's content that's REALLY interesting and expands some REALLY IMPORTANT parts of the universe. Having Javik as day-1 DLC was a tasteless move in my opinion, and I don't hope that Bioware will do anything like that ever again. 

That said, thank you very much for taking your time to discuss this. It's always interesting to hear about this stuff from another perspective. 

Modifié par Brovikk Rasputin, 14 août 2012 - 08:31 .

[gen. Italia]

Paid DLC idea is simply wrong. Day 1 DLC sucks even more. It doesn't matter because many people buy them, even if it's worthless s**t, like gun packs. It works exactly the way they said - people complain but are still willing to pay, so why bother?
On the other hand - CDProjekt's (guys, who made The Witcher 1 and 2) representative stated, that all DLC should be treated as 'post-sale service' and should be provided free of charge (because you have already paid for the game). That's pro-consumer attitude big companies like EA should learn from CDP (though I have no illusions they will).

[Grub Killer8016]

People still complain about this?

[Tipsyfresh]

scyphozoa wrote...

Tipsyfresh wrote...
Video games are a way for me to experience someone else's vision, if the vision is incomplete and you need dlc to finish it (dlc for the story) then you sold me an incomplete product. 

To be fair, if you want to experience someone else's vision, then you have to accept that their vision is defined by them, not you. You seem to be the person trying to determine the developer's vision, based on how much you want to spend and how much you think you should get. Until you are the creator, its not your place to define the creator's vision.

No I seem like a person that has happily purchased many dlcs and is very familiar with them. Also I seem like a person that creates because I do.  My comment you refer to is about why I buy video games and how they are presented to me. If your product needs to be enhanced by whatever it was incomplete. Be it a song - which gets remixes or a movie- that gets directors cuts or a game where characters that have been introduced throughout the plot and now can be added with more money.  The consumer has been wronged. Either by some middleman in regards to movies and music or the creator themselves.  

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

People still complain about this?

Hey, some people still complain about the ending, so why not this?

[Mclouvins]

gen. Italia wrote...

Paid DLC idea is simply wrong. Day 1 DLC sucks even more. It doesn't matter because many people buy them, even if it's worthless s**t, like gun packs. It works exactly the way they said - people complain but are still willing to pay, so why bother?
On the other hand - CDProjekt's (guys, who made The Witcher 1 and 2) representative stated, that all DLC should be treated as 'post-sale service' and should be provided free of charge (because you have already paid for the game). That's pro-consumer attitude big companies like EA should learn from CDP (though I have no illusions they will).

CDP panders a lot. The per capita income in Poland is around 50% of those in other major development areas. Assuming their employee compensation follows that their margins have the potential to be significantly higher since the good they sell is standardized on a global scale, and as such they  may be able to do that while some others may not.

[Ninja Stan]

gen. Italia wrote...

Paid DLC idea is simply wrong. Day 1 DLC sucks even more. It doesn't matter because many people buy them, even if it's worthless [crap], like gun packs. It works exactly the way they said - people complain but are still willing to pay, so why bother?
On the other hand - CDProjekt's (guys, who made The Witcher 1 and 2) representative stated, that all DLC should be treated as 'post-sale service' and should be provided free of charge (because you have already paid for the game). That's pro-consumer attitude big companies like EA should learn from CDP (though I have no illusions they will).

The swearing really is unnecessary here.

Yes, absolutely, CDProjekt's way of providing DLC (free, in perpetuity) is definitely appealing, and yes, it is definitely pro-consumer as it gives them content for free. But expecting every company to give you stuff for free isn't really all that reasonable. Sure, it's one thing to prefer to get free DLC from everyone. It's another thing entirely to expect it or demand it.

CDProjekt is definitely doing a good thing, but I am not willing to take that to mean that all other companies who do something different are doing a bad thing. Your tastes may, of course, vary.