514 réponses à ce sujet

[wirelesstkd]

Hudathan wrote...

wirelesstkd wrote...

Those interactions are part of what you're paying for in the DLC.

The part about Kyle Reese's dream makes a good point, though. Sure - that didn't get cut out, but things that add value to a movie are very frequently cut out of the film and later included in a higher priced, Director's Cut DVD. Take for example the elaborate sequence in T2 where the Terminator explains that he can't learn because his chip has that function turned off. A whole section where they cut in to his head happens and you get interaction between Sarah and John where she tries to destroy the chip and John stops her. Cameron talked about how he loved the scene because it shows John starting to take charge and make decisions.

The scene was fully filmed, but added running time to the movie. Theaters hate that, because it means they can't play the movie as many times a day, which means they make less money than if the movie was shorter. As a result, the line of the terminator explaining how can't learn was changed to him saying he can learn and the whole scene was cut. BUT - there it is in the high priced collecter's DVD that I own. I love it and I think it adds value, but I don't feel like the movie was incomplete without it.

Hollywood forcing people to double-dip when it comes to home video in order to avoid feeling like they're missing out is something else I have a problem with.

At the end of the day, this stuff only comes to be because people are willing to pay for it. A studio (movie or game) has a budget and knows how much they can afford to spend to get their expected profit back. There's a balance between giving consumers enough that they are satisfied and will buy the next game they produce and giving them not enough that they still buy DLC. This is a balance that they are always trying to find, and they find it by seeing how the market reacts to what they do. We can all have different opinions, but ultimately its about whether or not they make the profit they need to make.

I for one feel like Mass Effect 3 is WELL worth $60, and I am happy to pay $10 extra for some good DLC.

[wirelesstkd]

Sion1138 wrote...

There is no more art or integrity when it all answers to the buck in the end and nothing, not a single decision is made without this in mind. This is what I was talking about an hour ago, someone wrote Javik and intended for him to play a substantial role in the story, that was their artistic vision. That vision was revised to make more money. So tell me, where is the "art" when the artist doesn't have any freedom at all?

To be fair, there really never was pure artistic integrity when money was involved. At no time in the history of the film or game industry did money not factor in (unless it was a small, independant venture where the artists were okay with losing money).

But to the point of artistic integrity stories can change and be refined over time, and that doesn't mean a betrayal of the original vision. Did you know that early drafts of Empire Strikes Back had a ghost version of BOTH Obi Wan and Anikan Skywalker training Luke. This is because Vader was originally just a badass enforcer for the Emporer. At some point (after A New Hope and during the process of writing the sequel) Lucas got the great idea of getting rid of Pappa Skywalker and making Vader Luke's father. This was a change made midway through the preproduction of the movie, but I don't think anyone would argue that it betrayed the artistic integrity. It just made the whole thing better.

So if Bioware decided that something had to be cut because the project was over budget, what do you cut? The Genophage section? The Quarian/Geth fight? No, you cut the new character and story you were adding in in the first place because it wasn't needed for the story, then sell it after the fact as DLC.

My point is that it's okay for companies to make these decisions. They have a projected budget and they have to meet it.

[Master Xanthan]

HiddenInWar wrote...

 It honestly doesn't bother me, I just want to know why other people feel this way. 

From Ashes was a nice add-on so I guess it depends on on the individual. 

Its pretty simple, really. If its day 1 dlc, it probably should have been included with the game. I did like From Ashes, though. 

[chasemme]

Matter of opinion, really. If you agree that ME3 alone is worth $60, then there's no problem with more money for more content. Seeing as how ME3 is the shortest in the series (in my playthroughs, anyway), I don't know how I feel about it.

I also got the CE, so I didn't really have any reason to complain.

[AlanC9]

Master Xanthan wrote...

Its pretty simple, really. If its day 1 dlc, it probably should have been included with the game. 

Isn't that just assuming the answer to the question? Why should everything ready on Day 1 be included with the game?

[Oni Changas]

What ISN'T wrong with day 1 dlc? It's a guddamn insult to play that cop out card that "oh, this was cut from the game for time constraints." **** outta here, they can just push the release date back like Naughty Dog, Valve, Rockstar or any other respectable dev studio would do. 10 years ago, they'd have totally done it. If you can't see reason with this, then you're naiive or an apologist who knows no better.

[Bleachrude]

[quote]wirelesstkd wrote...

[quote]Sion1138 wrote...

T

But to the point of artistic integrity stories can change and be refined over time, and that doesn't mean a betrayal of the original vision. Did you know that early drafts of Empire Strikes Back had a ghost version of BOTH Obi Wan and Anikan Skywalker training Luke. This is because Vader was originally just a badass enforcer for the Emporer. At some point (after A New Hope and during the process of writing the sequel) Lucas got the great idea of getting rid of Pappa Skywalker and making Vader Luke's father. This was a change made midway through the preproduction of the movie, but I don't think anyone would argue that it betrayed the artistic integrity. It just made the whole thing better.



[/quote]

This of course explains why the 1st movie, it seemed like a love triangle between Luke, Leia and Han....Kind of proves that Star wars wasn't pre planned...

[OdanUrr]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The question is whether or not From Ashes is something that, had DLC not existed as an option, would have been included in the original game to begin with. If you think it would have been, then devs are gutting games to make more money. If you think this was something that they could not have included in the main game because of time/resources without selling it for DLC, then there's no problem.

Quite succinctly put.

[Master Xanthan]

AlanC9 wrote...

Master Xanthan wrote...

Its pretty simple, really. If its day 1 dlc, it probably should have been included with the game. 

Isn't that just assuming the answer to the question? Why should everything ready on Day 1 be included with the game?

Because dlc that is ready on day 1 was probably made during the actual development of the game itself. So its like taking out a part of the core game and charging people for it if they want it. 

[AlanC9]

OniTYME wrote...

What ISN'T wrong with day 1 dlc? It's a guddamn insult to play that cop out card that "oh, this was cut from the game for time constraints." **** outta here, they can just push the release date back like Naughty Dog, Valve, Rockstar or any other respectable dev studio would do. 10 years ago, they'd have totally done it. If you can't see reason with this, then you're naiive or an apologist who knows no better.

Dude, content gets cut from games all the time. 

In a world without DLC, the main game almost certainly ends up being made cheaper than it is now. The DLC is the high-margin part of the project. No DLC, and you've got to make your money on the game proper.

[AlanC9]

Master Xanthan wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Isn't that just assuming the answer to the question? Why should everything ready on Day 1 be included with the game?

Because dlc that is ready on day 1 was probably made during the actual development of the game itself. So its like taking out a part of the core game and charging people for it if they want it. 

That works if the idea of day 1 DLC came up in the middle of development. That isn't true for ME3, which was always going to have some kind of day 1 DLC. The budget was based on having DLC revenue. No DLC? Smaller budget.

[dreman9999]

There is nothing wrong with the concept. What that dlc maybe is wrong...

Day one dlc guns...No problem.

Day one dlc character with no heavy need in plot. still no problem.

Day one dlc with a character with depth and has a heavy part of the plot and story....Big problem.

Javik adds more incite, understanding and depth to the plot and story to ME3 AND IT'S A DAY ONE DLC.... that IS THE PROBLEM.

[Oni Changas]

Dude, content gets cut from games all the time. 

In a world without DLC, the main game almost certainly ends up being made cheaper than it is now. The DLC is the high-margin part of the project. No DLC, and you've got to make your money on the game proper.

lol, candy coat and justify it all you want. Irrelevant. Like I said, they can always do what a respectable consumer business would do and push back the launch to get that last minute stuff in. Doesn't change the fact that the vanilla games are $60+tax, yet you have "early dlc" for $10 more. For those of us who work for a living and provide for our people, $70 is damned high for a mf'n game. That's a week of groceries, a month of gas money, etc.

[Omega2079]

Master Xanthan wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Master Xanthan wrote...

Its pretty simple, really. If its day 1 dlc, it probably should have been included with the game. 

Isn't that just assuming the answer to the question? Why should everything ready on Day 1 be included with the game?

Because dlc that is ready on day 1 was probably made during the actual development of the game itself. So its like taking out a part of the core game and charging people for it if they want it. 

No. Budgets are independant. It would simply never be made if it weren't to be sold.

Modifié par Omega2079, 05 septembre 2012 - 05:14 .

[robertm2]

day 1 dlc is sometimes not a big deal. im ok with avatar items, customization options and the like but something like from ashes which is vital to the story should have been included with the game. It was just a plot by ea to make more money from people and even if it could not have been included with the disc it should have came with a free download code for people who pre-ordered or bought the game new. Lets look at mass effect 2 for a second. Zaeed was free of charge for people who got the game new. So is there any reason other than to milk fans for as much money as possible that from ashes should not have been included with a full purchase or pre-order of the game? Hell no. You could also use borderlands 2 as an example. If you pre-order that you will receive a character when it is released sometime between 30-60 days after the game is released. From ashes is something i will never buy simply out of principle and its one of the many ways bioware has managed to lose all of the respect i had for them before me3.

[Omega2079]

robertm2 wrote...

day 1 dlc is sometimes not a big deal. im ok with avatar items, customization options and the like but something like from ashes which is vital to the story should have been included with the game. It was just a plot by ea to make more money from people and even if it could not have been included with the disc it should have came with a free download code for people who pre-ordered or bought the game new. Lets look at mass effect 2 for a second. Zaeed was free of charge for people who got the game new. So is there any reason other than to milk fans for as much money as possible that from ashes should not have been included with a full purchase or pre-order of the game? Hell no. You could also use borderlands 2 as an example. If you pre-order that you will receive a character when it is released sometime between 30-60 days after the game is released. From ashes is something i will never buy simply out of principle and its one of the many ways bioware has managed to lose all of the respect i had for them before me3.

You're ignoring many factors like development costs, time frames, market position and supply/demand. They don't make games for philanthopic purposes. They're making a product to turn a profit. They can only do that if enough people find value in what they make and are willing to trade their money for the game and dlc.

To say it's wrong to make day 1  dlc isn't about principle, it's self-entitlement.

[robertm2]

Omega2079 wrote...

robertm2 wrote...

day 1 dlc is sometimes not a big deal. im ok with avatar items, customization options and the like but something like from ashes which is vital to the story should have been included with the game. It was just a plot by ea to make more money from people and even if it could not have been included with the disc it should have came with a free download code for people who pre-ordered or bought the game new. Lets look at mass effect 2 for a second. Zaeed was free of charge for people who got the game new. So is there any reason other than to milk fans for as much money as possible that from ashes should not have been included with a full purchase or pre-order of the game? Hell no. You could also use borderlands 2 as an example. If you pre-order that you will receive a character when it is released sometime between 30-60 days after the game is released. From ashes is something i will never buy simply out of principle and its one of the many ways bioware has managed to lose all of the respect i had for them before me3.

You're ignoring many factors like development costs, time frames, market position and supply/demand. They don't make games for philanthopic purposes. They're making a product to turn a profit. They can only do that if enough people find value in what they make and are willing to trade their money for the game and dlc.

To say it's wrong to make day 1  dlc isn't about principle, it's self-entitlement.

its self-entitlement to say i wont spend my money on something i dont agree with? ok then. one thing you are ignoring is that most people who get into game development are doing it becasue they love it not to make as much money as possible. Making money is something they need to do if they want to continue making these games but trying to milk people for as much money as possible is not a requirment and its not something all developers do. I dont see bethesda or rockstar pulling this whole day 1 dlc thing and they make alot less money than ea does as a whole. Thats the problem with ea they are not passionate about games and they dont give a rats ass about you or what you think of their games. All they care about is the bottom line and pleasing shareholders. I dont remember seeing day 1 dlc for mass effect 1 and for mass effect 2 it was included with a full purchase of the game. Mass effect 3 sold more copies than both of those games but somehow they need to have day 1 dlc as well to turn a profit? Thats failed logic.

[Omega2079]

robertm2 wrote...

Omega2079 wrote...

robertm2 wrote...

day 1 dlc is sometimes not a big deal. im ok with avatar items, customization options and the like but something like from ashes which is vital to the story should have been included with the game. It was just a plot by ea to make more money from people and even if it could not have been included with the disc it should have came with a free download code for people who pre-ordered or bought the game new. Lets look at mass effect 2 for a second. Zaeed was free of charge for people who got the game new. So is there any reason other than to milk fans for as much money as possible that from ashes should not have been included with a full purchase or pre-order of the game? Hell no. You could also use borderlands 2 as an example. If you pre-order that you will receive a character when it is released sometime between 30-60 days after the game is released. From ashes is something i will never buy simply out of principle and its one of the many ways bioware has managed to lose all of the respect i had for them before me3.

You're ignoring many factors like development costs, time frames, market position and supply/demand. They don't make games for philanthopic purposes. They're making a product to turn a profit. They can only do that if enough people find value in what they make and are willing to trade their money for the game and dlc.

To say it's wrong to make day 1  dlc isn't about principle, it's self-entitlement.

its self-entitlement to say i wont spend my money on something i dont agree with? ok then. one thing you are ignoring is that most people who get into game development are doing it becasue they love it not to make as much money as possible. Making money is something they need to do if they want to continue making these games but trying to milk people for as much money as possible is not a requirment and its not something all developers do. I dont see bethesda or rockstar pulling this whole day 1 dlc thing and they make alot less money than ea does as a whole. Thats the problem with ea they are not passionate about games and they dont give a rats ass about you or what you think of their games. All they care about is the bottom line and pleasing shareholders. I dont remember seeing day 1 dlc for mass effect 1 and for mass effect 2 it was included with a full purchase of the game. Mass effect 3 sold more copies than both of those games but somehow they need to have day 1 dlc as well to turn a profit? Thats failed logic.

Making it a moral issue is the problem with your argument. If you don't value it then that's fine, but don't call it wrong because you don't think it's worth buying.

Many game devs go into it because they love it, but they sell their product.

You're saying it's wrong that EA makes money, as if somehow making things that people want to trade their money for, and being good at it, is a bad thing. It's not.

I didn't state they necisarily need day 1 dlc to make a profit. But to compare one game to another and say the financial circumsetances are the same shows you don't understand the ecomics of it.

Games as an industry isn't charity. The bottom line is only in the black if you're making something people want to buy. When it is, they're satisfying the most customers they can.

[Ninja Stan]

There is nothing wrong with wishing that the DLC you want was part of the game to begin with. You play the game, you really like it, you want more content, that's great! That's definitely a compliment to the developers, that the people who buy their games can't get enough of it.

The thing is, some content is planned from the get-go to be DLC. As in, this content was planned all along to be extra content that costs extra money to purchase. There is no "con" here. The price and gist of the content was advertised, its price clearly stated, and its importance to the main game story ranges from optional to OMG MANDATORY, depending on who you ask.

If you want a car analogy, it's like a 100-disc CD player being offered as standard if you buy on the day of the model's release. It's nice to have, but is it mandatory? I suppose it would depend on whether you have an iPod, doesn't it? Should that 100-disc CD changer be in everyone's car?

If you want a burger analogy, it's like being offered pickles on your burger. Some people would say that pickles make the burger, that they are crucial to the enjoyment of a burger. Others say that pickles are optional and aren't necessary or can be added to the burger later by those who want them. Should pickles be on every burger?

If you want a pizza analogy, it's like having anchovies. They are not to everyone's taste, but I love them. I always order my meat lover's pizzas with anchovies and feel they are pretty crucial to my pizza experience. Other people don't like them. Should anchovies be on every pizza?

With these analogies, please keep in mind that the pre-order bonuses are clearly defined. The cost to add later is also clearly defined. People can crow all they like about what the package they purchased "should have" contained. But believing that the 100-CD changer, pickles, or anchovies should always be in every product just because you happen to like those things and/or want those things is a little misguided and completely ignores the opinions of those who may have iPods, may prefer ketchup to be the tart flavour in their burger, or may hate anchovies.

And don't go into how much money is being made or what a given company's profit margin is for which game. You don't need to worry about that. THat shouldn't even factor in to your decision-making process. What you should be considering is:

a) How much do I want this thing?
Do I think this thing is worth the money I will pay for it?
c) Will I buy it?

None of your answers to any of those questions will be wrong.

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 05 septembre 2012 - 08:09 .

[Isichar]

Ninja Stan wrote...

There is nothing wrong with wishing that the DLC you want was part of the game to begin with. You play the game, you really like it, you want more content, that's great! That's definitely a compliment to the developers, that the people who buy their games can't get enough of it.

The thing is, some content is planned from the get-go to be DLC. As in, this content was planned all along to be extra content that costs extra money to purchase. There is no "con" here. The price and gist of the content was advertised, its price clearly stated, and its importance to the main game story ranges from optional to OMG MANDATORY, depending on who you ask.

If you want a car analogy, it's like a 100-disc CD player being offered as standard if you buy on the day of the model's release. It's nice to have, but is it mandatory? I suppose it would depend on whether you have an iPod, doesn't it? Should that 100-disc CD changer be in everyone's car?

If you want a burger analogy, it's like being offered pickles on your burger. Some people would say that pickles make the burger, that they are crucial to the enjoyment of a burger. Others say that pickles are optional and aren't necessary or can be added to the burger later by those who want them. Should pickles be on every burger?

If you want a pizza analogy, it's like having anchovies. They are not to everyone's taste, but I love them. I always order my meat lover's pizzas with anchovies and feel they are pretty crucial to my pizza experience. Other people don't like them. Should anchovies be on every pizza?

With these analogies, please keep in mind that the pre-order bonuses are clearly defined. The cost to add later is also clearly defined. People can crow all they like about what the package they purchased "should have" contained. But believing that the 100-CD changer, pickles, or anchovies should always be in every product just because you happen to like those things and/or want those things is a little misguided and completely ignores the opinions of those who may have iPods, may prefer ketchup to be the tart flavour in their burger, or may hate anchovies.

And don't go into how much money is being made or what a given company's profit margin is for which game. You don't need to worry about that. THat shouldn't even factor in to your decision-making process. What you should be considering is:

a) How much do I want this thing?
Do I think this thing is worth the money I will pay for it?
c) Will I buy it?

None of your answers to any of those questions will be wrong.

But what about when it actually is part of the content you purchased and its locked until you pay? If I go into a store and buy a ME3 disk should I not be entitled to the content on that disk? Even if I say I want to support the developers more it feels like content is purposely been locked out in the interest of making more money which feels really scabby towards the consumer.

[GiarcYekrub]

dreman9999 wrote...

There is nothing wrong with the concept. What that dlc maybe is wrong...

Day one dlc guns...No problem.

Day one dlc character with no heavy need in plot. still no problem.

Day one dlc with a character with depth and has a heavy part of the plot and story....Big problem.

Javik adds more incite, understanding and depth to the plot and story to ME3 AND IT'S A DAY ONE DLC.... that IS THE PROBLEM.

I disagree with this so much, I want DLC to matter, I want it to fit with the ongoing narative, I want it to "incite, understanding and depth to the plot and story" the alternative is superfluous side quests like "Bring down the sky" and "pinnacle station". Your complaining because of what makes it worth the asking price IMO. Give me a Javik over a Zaeed anyday even Day 1.

Anyway roll on Omega.

[Isichar]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

There is nothing wrong with the concept. What that dlc maybe is wrong...

Day one dlc guns...No problem.

Day one dlc character with no heavy need in plot. still no problem.

Day one dlc with a character with depth and has a heavy part of the plot and story....Big problem.

Javik adds more incite, understanding and depth to the plot and story to ME3 AND IT'S A DAY ONE DLC.... that IS THE PROBLEM.

I disagree with this so much, I want DLC to matter, I want it to fit with the ongoing narative, I want it to "incite, understanding and depth to the plot and story" the alternative is superfluous side quests like "Bring down the sky" and "pinnacle station". Your complaining because of what makes it worth the asking price IMO. Give me a Javik over a Zaeed anyday even Day 1.

Anyway roll on Omega.

But look at it this way, if your not willing to pay the extra 10-15 bucks or w/e it costs for that DLC, then wouldn't you feel like your getting an incomplete/inferior product? Making content that is important to the dynamic of the game released with the original game that is locked out to players who are not willing to pay more is very easily viewed as milking the consumer. I love DLC and I want to support the practice but it should be my choice to support it, I dont want to feel like I have to spend more to get a complete product.

[Omega2079]

Isichar wrote...



But what about when it actually is part of the content you purchased and its locked until you pay? If I go into a store and buy a ME3 disk should I not be entitled to the content on that disk? Even if I say I want to support the developers more it feels like content is purposely been locked out in the interest of making more money which feels really scabby towards the consumer.

You're not buying the game, you're buying a licence to it. There never is a transfer of property.

The EULA has terms and conditions. Have a read, it contains a lot of details.