512 réponses à ce sujet

[kwndc]

The one key point the OP noted is that Bioware and EA are companies in business of making money.

The citizens/consumers ALWAYS have the power. They spend their money on one item and not the other.

No one made me purchase Mass Effect 1, 2, 3 and their DLC. I chose to do so. I have not chosen to purchase Dragon Age, nor hundreds of other games on the market.   I have not bought the Firefight pack of weapons for SP and have no plans to.  I don't want it.  I will buy Leviathan when released.  MY CHOICE.

Free stuff is always nice, but if companies put everything out for free, they would be out of businesss very quickly.

This is basic Economics 101 people.

Modifié par kwndc, 14 août 2012 - 08:40 .

[ManUnderMask]

kwndc wrote...
The citizens/consumers ALWAYS have the power. They spend their money on one item and not the other.

I made this exact same point in a post on page 5. It really is something people tend to forget.

[Tipsyfresh]

Ninja Stan wrote...

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.

I never said I don't accept changed things. If dlc expands the vision then great but if it's used as a crutch because of deadlines and moneymanagment then it's wrong.  That simple. Javik filled holes that needed to be filled in the story if not then you'd just being paying for head canon.  That's not good.  But Extra weapons because for some reason the Ingame weren't fun enough- fine buy at your leisure. A full on backstory of the main enemy in ur vision/story...eh optional unless the base game changes...oh wait.  I'm all for new ways to tell stories but ur not gonna make me feel like a bad consumer because I have reasons why I don't wanna spend my money anymore.

Sorry.

[zsom]

I wonder.. do you also go on Apple's forum and tell them they cannot justify the price for iPhones? On official Mercedes forums telling they can't justify the price of their cars compared to a Ford?

Or do you only grace us with your infinite wisdom? Every company can charge whatever they want for their product, and they don't need to justify anything. You as the consumer will buy it or you walk away. And if the company finds 5 people to take your place, then it simply means that product was not meant for you.

Modifié par zsom, 14 août 2012 - 09:09 .

[swordmalice]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Just because us gamers are unbelievably stupid and actually buys this stuff, doesn't make it right. Especially not with such an important character as the DLC character turned out to be. Sure you can play the game without him, but damn do you miss out on some important lore.

You got every hardcore fan by the balls with day-1 DLC like that, and you know it!

Whether it's "right" or "wrong" has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. BioWare is a business, and every business' goal is to make a profit with their product, and sometimes, they must accomplish this in many different ways. It's why companies like Rolex can offer watches for tens of thousands of dollars and Ferrari can make cars costing well over half a million dollars. Sure, you may not agree with the fact that their particular products can be bought by others for far less, but that doesn't make it "wrong" for them to price their items as they see fit. These companies exist and continue to thrive because there is a market for their product and as long as that market contiues to buy, they will continue to provide for said market. It's the same principle with any kind of DLC. You can like it, or dislike it, but as long as it sells it will continue to be distributed. I'm all for having morals be a foundation for a business, but there's a time and place and it certainly does not belong in the issue of DLC for video games.

And BioWare doesn't have anybody "by the balls". So they made a DLC product that appeals to hardcore ME fans. It's like they want people to actually buy it. Shocking! Even better, you could play through the entire game without knowing about the DLC and it wouldn't have changed a thing. If anything, this is how a company SHOULD handle DLC: make it appealing to fans willing to pay for it (paying for something over the internet these days is rough, I know, but trust me this system of using money to obtain goods has been in place long before the Net) and implement it in such a way that it does not affect the experience of the main game with its absence. It's not like ME3 is a harder game without Javik, or you're missing out on a new romance (thank GOD for that. Romanced Javik? I'll pass)

Modifié par swordmalice, 14 août 2012 - 09:08 .

[Tipsyfresh]

scyphozoa wrote...

Tipsyfresh wrote...
 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.  

You're totally entitled to have that opinion. But I certainly don't agree. You're basically saying that no DLC should exist, or ever be charged for. I think that is nonsense. A vanilla game is a single, self-contained project. 
You seem to think just because any DLC is attached to a base game, that it should be included in the base game, no matter when it is made or how much money it cost to make it.  Sorry, I'm not buying that for a minute. Any amount of common sense will tell you that seperate teams of professionals working on seperate projects with seperate budgets will have seperate price tags. If you can't accept that, then you're going to be very unsatisified for the rest of the future of video games. 

You shouldn't  guess at what people think, if you have something to say then share but it shouldn't be about mypossible  unsatisfaction  or where I'm coming from.  Dlc done well that expands the story is great or better yet dlc that reflects actual player feedback awesome. If the game is gonna end up costing 90 dollars  because the product is bet

[Mazebook]

I like most kinds of DLC...i don´t have to buy it...but it gives me more options to get what i enjoy.

[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. So before you complain about paid dlc go to work tomorrow and your not getting paid for it. Your argument has just been brought into the realm of reality

[casamar]

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).

One problem with that model, if you look at how CDProjekt released their DLC on XBox, it was at once, because it has to go through First Party Certification, and that costs money. If it fails certification, you have to pay again after the problems are fixed. So whatever DLC is released for the Witcher 2 on XBox is likely all the content you will be getting. One of devs even alludes to this in an interview

SPOnG: You guys have been very pro-active in
issuing all of these free patches and DLC for the PC version. But are
you intending to continue with that - and if so, how do you intend to do
that with Microsoft, who are pretty notorious for not allowing much in
the way of free DLC?[/b]

Mark Ziemak:
That’s a tricky question, because I don’t know yet. We knew that we
might have a... problem, or that this sort of thing might not be
allowed, which is why we decided to launch all the DLCs that were
created for the PC and all the extra content right away on the console
game disc. That way, there is no problem. As for the future - I don’t
know, we’ll have to think of something a little later on maybe. I’m not
sure if we already have a solution yet. But of course, we would like to
keep up the good work.

On the other hand, maybe... it’s a really
defined and rounded version of the game, the console edition. So perhaps
we won’t have to create new improvements. Maybe it’s already close to
being perfect (laughs).

CDProjekt developed and published The Witcher 2, so they had the option to release DLC as they see fit. Not every studio has that ability

Modifié par casamar, 14 août 2012 - 09:07 .

[Tipsyfresh]

If the game will cost 90 dollars because it's better, awesome! But nickel and diming your customer base because it's up to them if they want to buy it is a good sign that something isn't right.

[zsom]

Tipsyfresh wrote...

If the game will cost 90 dollars because it's better, awesome! But nickel and diming your customer base because it's up to them if they want to buy it is a good sign that something isn't right.

Wrong. You can't increase the price if the average price on the market isn't increasing as well. Even the most awesome game of all times would fail if it cost too much compared to other ones being released.

To maximize profit you need to have a quality product just a bit above the average price. (How much that "bit" is depends usually on your marketing)

[Tipsyfresh]

zsom wrote...

Tipsyfresh wrote...

If the game will cost 90 dollars because it's better, awesome! But nickel and diming your customer base because it's up to them if they want to buy it is a good sign that something isn't right.

Wrong. You can't increase the price if the average price on the market isn't increasing as well. Even the most awesome game of all times would fail if it cost too much compared to other ones being released.

To maximize profit you need to have a quality product just a bit above the average price. (How much that "bit" is depends usually on your marketing)

Ha, I meant when u include the dlc purchases. Also are u sayin that dlc prices are a ripoff even With the better game experience?

[XyleJKH]

[inappropriate comment removed]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 14 août 2012 - 09:30 .

[devSin]

Meh, I'm still waiting for high-resolution textures for Item Pack #1.

It's funny how Fernando became the overall director of online development shortly afterward... all he had to do was climb over the backs of the high-resolution textures to get there!

I know what you did, Fernando!

[zsom]

Tipsyfresh wrote...

Ha, I meant when u include the dlc purchases. Also are u sayin that dlc prices are a ripoff even With the better game experience?

No, financial success and ripoff are completely unrelated. DLC cannot be a ripoff unless it doesn't containt what it was advertised to have. It is only a ripoff if the consumer is actively mislead and made believe the content he is buying is bigger / better than the actual product. Like if you are sold an item pack but are told it will also contain missions.

[Tipsyfresh]

Financial success = Bernie madoff

Ripoff= Bernie madoff

I'll stop responding since ur not making sense with ur posts.

[tanisha__unknown]

Nothing wrong with DLC. But day-one-DLC has always the taste of selling the game slice by slice: original game content being taken out of the release and then sold for extra cash.

[XqctaX]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

The day-1 DLC for ME3 was more than just extra topping. It contains some damn interesting lore and backstory that isn't explained anywhere else in the game. Hell, without it, you learn VERY LITTLE about a certain race in the entire game. 

So the DLC contained interesting content that encouraged people to purchase it? ARen't you kind of blaming the developer/publisher for making something you want to buy, and then complaining that you want to buy it and shouldn't have to? What should BioWare/EA do, create DLC that people don't find interesting and want to buy?

making jokes like that makes me want to make a joke about torrents.

point was this.
YOUR COMPANY IS BEEING BLAMED FOR CUTTING CONTENT INGAME TO SELL IT SEPERATLY
EVEN THU IT WAS AT SOME POINT IN TIME ALLREADY A PART OF THE GAME:
(yes i am yelling, seems to be needed to get thrue to some peoples dense heads)

arguing that it was a really good DLC isn't smart,
your accually making yourselfs look even worse, since it was important content and intergral to the story.
that you guys cut out to nickel and dime us to make a few extra bucks.

oh and i read an IGN article one chris P  pasted a 
while back in the thread.
Seriously that article can be summed up like this.

*we can make more money if we remove content from the game,
then hold that concent hostage demaning more money from the consumer,
thus forcing them to pay more to get that and for the full experience*

and you justify it with this:

*we do it becouse we can can make money doing it*

and i see it adding up to this sentiment in Bioware these days

*we dont care about making a good game, or the gamers enjoying it,
we only care about milking the customers for as much money as humanly possible
by getting them hocked and then hold content hostage/bait and switch/ nickel and dime*

Your next product will be free on piratebay and hundreds of other torrentsites

Why Stan and chris should i EVER give you a dime for your products when obviously
you dont care about your customers at all.
your even stating up front that you only care about the money, jeez.

and i accually STOPED piracy and bought your games back in the day becouse i thought
you guys were worth endorcing. a sentiment i no longer have.

all i read from you guys so far in this thread was that
"we cheat you of money becouse you let us get away with it"  <-- WTF!!!!:sick::sick:


Edit: This is what you should do Bioware:
NO Microtransactions, NO on disk DLC. NO day one DLC, NO online-passes.
get that though your heads or loose customers till you tank. period.

the balls in your court, were you take it from here it certainly up to you guys,
just remember that with every action is an reaction.

Modifié par XqctaX, 14 août 2012 - 10:05 .

[Mathias]

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.

And exactly how does that justify nickle and diming the consumer? It's one thing to have cosmetic type dlc on day 1, or an extra side mission that doesn't effect the story at all. But to charge people extra for something that's very important to the lore of the franchise, that was also obviously developed before the release, is going too far. Your argument is "Well if it's important that's a good thing cause then people will buy it", but you're not truly thinking in the consumers best interest.

Who out there is asking developers "Hey, can you take important elements out of the story and then charge us an extra $10 for them on launch day? Thanks!"

But you think it's a good thing to do something like that, just so that it encourages people to give Bioware more money. How about the people who don't have that extra $10 to spend? What is $60 not enough to get the full game on release, you gotta charge your fans an extra $10? $60 can be a lot of money for some people, and they're getting screwed over by missing out on this content that's very lore heavy and imporant to the overall story.

I wouldn't call that "encouraging" as much as I would call it "pressuring".

[Ninja Stan]

XqctaX, if that's your take-away from this discussion, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. We shall have to agree to disagree.

[XqctaX]

Ninja Stan wrote...

XqctaX, if that's your take-away from this discussion, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. We shall have to agree to disagree.

did you read my Edit part? 
the edit part i my previous input kinda adds up to this.

if you guys want me to support your company by bying your products
Make me WANT to buy your stuff, dont try and pressure me into it.

theres a difference, and you guys are smart, so im pretty sure you understand what im getting at very well.

i understand at this point arguing about this more might not add to anything but... hostility
whitch isnt what i want. 

i want you guys to think like this, "we take care of you guys, and you guys take care of us"
right now its more like you trying to take as much a possible from us by giving us as little as possible.

hope i made myself clear enough... 

Modifié par XqctaX, 14 août 2012 - 10:15 .

[Ninja Stan]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

And exactly how does that justify nickle and diming the consumer? It's one thing to have cosmetic type dlc on day 1, or an extra side mission that doesn't effect the story at all. But to charge people extra for something that's very important to the lore of the franchise, that was also obviously developed before the release, is going too far. Your argument is "Well if it's important that's a good thing cause then people will buy it", but you're not truly thinking in the consumers best interest.

The "customer's best interest" is to make the choice the is right for him, a choice that is the customer's to make regardless of what is being offered for sale.

Who out there is asking developers "Hey, can you take important elements out of the story and then charge us an extra $10 for them on launch day? Thanks!"

No one, so developers aren't doing that. Your continued insistence that this is happening is more your skewed perception of things than what companies are actually doing.

But you think it's a good thing to do something like that, just so that it encourages people to give Bioware more money. How about the people who don't have that extra $10 to spend?

Then they won't purchase the content and won't have it. They will play and enjoy the base game without the benefit of extra content. Simple.

What is $60 not enough to get the full game on release, you gotta charge your fans an extra $10?

The "full game on release" costs $60. You pay that money, you get the full game. If you want the full game plus DLC, then you pay the extra $10 and get the full game plus DLC. The base game + DLC is not being sold for $60. It is being sold for $60 + $10. You not liking that pricing model doesn't make the base game any less "complete."

$60 can be a lot of money for some people, and they're getting screwed over by missing out on this content that's very lore heavy and imporant to the overall story.

No. Patently incorrect. Not wanting to pay for bonus content is the choice that I'm continuing to harp on in this thread. You choose whether that price is worth it to you. If you think it's worth it and pay the price, you get the content. If you don't think it's worth the price and don't pay it, you don't get the conus content.

I wouldn't call that "encouraging" as much as I would call it "pressuring".

Semantics. The ultimate choice to buy or not buy is still yours. No one has taken that away from you, regardless of what's being offered or how much it costs. Again, you disagreeing on the definition of "complete game" is immaterial when it comes to what companies are offering or your power to choose.

[DeathScepter]

Listen to Ninja Stan, he has good points.

[MCPOWill]

They may not, by EA can.