Competition in the marketplace is important, I know I bought ME3 here in UK from ASDA because they were the cheapest, I bought another game from Tesco for the same reason, they are competing against each other for my custom driving prices down. CoD is RRP at £55 ~ $85 but because of the supermarket price wars it retails for ~£35 ($55) www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/nov/08/pricecheck-call-of-duty-modern-warfare to elimate this competition will be bad IMO
Also "The Burger" is the base content, which is all you purchased.
Yes but it is not just the burger with tomatoes optional, it is a burger with tomatoes on it when it is given to you and you are told you have no right to eat them. I honestly dont see why your so eager to push an example that does not fit with the disk/dlc situation. It seems like when you focus on the burger example your intentionally ignoring the fact that the DLC content is on the disk. Its not something seperate it is all part of the original content you have already purchased.
I am not arguing the competition is a bad thing, I am saying clearly milking the consumer is.
Isichar wrote... I am angry that I am paying more for less
This is what I don't understand, game budgets are rising massively, Just looking at Mass Effect 3 for your $60 you are now getting a product of $30-40million investment. You are getting Martin Sheen, Your getting varied environments, HD graphics, A story that reflects the choices made in prevous games, both a male and female protagonist etc.
And jessica Chobot, and subpar ending and a ton of fetch quests. Whats your point? Does a higher budget game automatically make it a higher quality game? I dont think so.
Sion1138 wrote... Wait, who defines what constitutes the 'complete' product? It looks to me like it's arbitrary, they can claim anything to be a complete product. Who defines the value of each constituent part? That too is arbitrary.
You do. As a consumer, if you keep buying it, it's worth the money. If not, EA will react to the market.
It is simply a fact, that these days you pay more for less. And the concensus is, that this is acceptable. So there, you can't really do anything about it one way or the other.
More for less??? Are you serious? When did you pay less money for a game with A List Hollywood actors recording multiple versions of dialogue to account for all the choices you could have made? Let's do a quick expiriment:
Here is an SNES RPG that came out in 1995. It contains 16 bit graphics and sold, at the time, for $84.99. Without adjusting for inflation, that's already more than Mass Effect 3 PLUS the day one DLC. And I didn't see Martin Sheen anywhere in that game.
(Chrono Tigger)
Adjusting for inflation, it would cost $120 (2010), BTW.
When people say that you're getting less, you're comparing apples to oranges. Even the development cost of a game like Halo or Modern Warfare is so different to Mass Effect. Even Skyrim doesn't have the same level of dialogue and cutscenes that you find in ME. ME is just such a comprehensive game.
Isichar wrote... 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.
Did you play Mass Effect 3? Because I feel like it was a VERY complete game without From Ashes. I think From Ashes adds a lot of value, but there's no doubt in my mind that I would have found it to be a full, complete game if I never had that DLC.
Sion1138 wrote... @wirelesstkd
The point is that this wasn't a refinement to make for a better story, this change, along with many others was made strictly to milk the product. The original script was gutted to make way for this DLC. Something that would undoubtedly have been a better product was compromised.
This has nothing to do with refinement in the sense you have put forth.
What I think I know: It's my understanding that Javik was originally included in the full game and there was no Prothean VI, but rather just Javik filling in the backstory. This would also have meant that development was done to put him in every scene and have interactions with all the characters, his recrutiment mission, plus balancing his powers and combat skills, etc. At some point in development he was taken out and the VI was added to give the exposition. It's also possible that this solved some other problems the writers were having in trying to refine the plot with regard to Cerberus' goals (writing is hard, see my example about Lucas stumbling on to Vader as Luke's father). What I speculate: What I think happened is that the game was running over budget and over time. I think the developers knew that something needed to be cut, and they also knew that they intended to put a team together to have day one DLC ready to go, but they didn't know what that would be. In a move that solved all the problems, they handed the Javik stuff to the DLC team because it meant that his development could be written out of the final budget. By giving his exposition to the Prothean VI it ensured that the game was still complete and nothing was missing, but the DLC team was able to take the time needed to make sure he worked well without cutting corners, because his development was rebudgeted.
To reiterate my earlier point, it's okay that the team had a budget and stuck to it. They have to do that. They are a business and their intention is to make a profit. Profit is not a dirty word and we should stop treating game developers like it is.
Modifié par wirelesstkd, 05 septembre 2012 - 12:43 .
Isichar wrote... I am angry that I am paying more for less
This is what I don't understand, game budgets are rising massively, Just looking at Mass Effect 3 for your $60 you are now getting a product of $30-40million investment. You are getting Martin Sheen, Your getting varied environments, HD graphics, A story that reflects the choices made in prevous games, both a male and female protagonist etc.
And jessica Chobot, and subpar ending and a ton of fetch quests. Whats your point? Does a higher budget game automatically make it a higher quality game? I dont think so.
I don't understand you, I don't think you know what you want. Thats the game you purchased. I rate it as game of the year so far. If its not your thing why buy it?
Yes but it is not just the burger with tomatoes optional, it is a burger with tomatoes on it when it is given to you and you are told you have no right to eat them. I honestly dont see why your so eager to push an example that does not fit with the disk/dlc situation. It seems like when you focus on the burger example your intentionally ignoring the fact that the DLC content is on the disk. Its not something seperate it is all part of the original content you have already purchased.
The burger analogy is just a bit flawed (all analogies have their shortcomings, it's why they are analogies). The difference is that witha burger you're paying for the burger. With the game disc, you're not paying for the disk, but rather the content on it. It's different because digital delivery is different than selling physical goods. A disk is able to contain more content than was budgeted in for the $60 you paid. The $60 got you the base game, which is full and complete. The added content wasn't made by the same team, and thus EA hasn't accounted for their paychecks yet when you pay the $60. Their bet is that enough people will be willing to pay the extra $10 to unlock the stuff that cost them more money. If they didn't think that was a good bet, they wouldn't have made the investment to create the extra content and instead would have left it on the proverbial cutting room floor.
We can speculate all we want but heres what we know: Javic was on the original disk. He is part of the original content and was removed for the intent of making more profit. You can spin it all you want and say they have a right to or that this is a good thing, but I still see this as asking me to pay the full price of a game and more later for what is actually part of the original game. They could cut out 90% of the game and there would still be people out there arguing that its "still a complete game" and its frustrating to see people welcome this practice with open arms.
Isichar wrote... And jessica Chobot, and subpar ending and a ton of fetch quests. Whats your point? Does a higher budget game automatically make it a higher quality game? I dont think so.
That's a reasonable for argument for why the game wasn't good, but not why the game wasn't complete. EA is allowed to make games that you don't like. I personally hate Halo, but it doesn't mean that the game was incomplete. It just wasn't my cup of tea.
Competition in the marketplace is important, I know I bought ME3 here in UK from ASDA because they were the cheapest, I bought another game from Tesco for the same reason, they are competing against each other for my custom driving prices down. CoD is RRP at £55 ~ $85 but because of the supermarket price wars it retails for ~£35 ($55) www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/nov/08/pricecheck-call-of-duty-modern-warfare to elimate this competition will be bad IMO
Also "The Burger" is the base content, which is all you purchased.
Yes but it is not just the burger with tomatoes optional, it is a burger with tomatoes on it when it is given to you and you are told you have no right to eat them. I honestly dont see why your so eager to push an example that does not fit with the disk/dlc situation. It seems like when you focus on the burger example your intentionally ignoring the fact that the DLC content is on the disk. Its not something seperate it is all part of the original content you have already purchased.
I am not arguing the competition is a bad thing, I am saying clearly milking the consumer is.
You are mad because you paid less for a game, and additional content, than somebody that preordered the Collector's Edition, or Digital Deluxe Edition did for the same content? Are you feeling ripped off because it didn't cost you more? I should be mad that I got raped like that, you know, get this bonus item for buying the Collector's Edition, only to find out that somebody else got the same stuff for less than I paid. ...and yet, there is no uproar about that, I wonder why? In my opinion, if you want CE/DDE material, you should be required to buy them, not get them in a DLC the same day, thus nullifying the whole idea of "bonus" content.
No, somebody that does not buy the CE of anything is not "entitled" to the same content as somebody that did. Your $30 dollars isn't worth more than their $50 dollars. Unfortunately, this is how this Day 1 DLC sale worked out, isn't it? Of course, since BioWare is bad, all of a sudden getting more for less is a bad thing. OMG, they're milking me for allowing me access to CE material for less than the poor slobs who actually bought the CE, I'd better hit the forums and get everyone up in arms about Day 1 DLC. Yep, sounds a lot like BSN doesn't it?
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.
if its ready to go day one, than its pretty obvious that it should have already been included on the disc. From Ashes was a big rip off. Javik himself, and his squad banter where already on the disc. its clear Biowares intent from the start was to sell this separately at an extra fee. I have no problem with dlc, as long is its used to create new content, and not used to sell things that where taken out of the core game
Modifié par corkey sweet, 05 septembre 2012 - 12:57 .
We can speculate all we want but heres what we know: Javic was on the original disk. He is part of the original content and was removed for the intent of making more profit. You can spin it all you want and say they have a right to or that this is a good thing, but I still see this as asking me to pay the full price of a game and more later for what is actually part of the original game. They could cut out 90% of the game and there would still be people out there arguing that its "still a complete game" and its frustrating to see people welcome this practice with open arms.
You are still assuming that he was developed by the team budgeted to do the game and not the team budgeted to do DLC. If I am making a game and I know that I will hire 100 people to develop it, that's my in my budget. If I decide that some fans would enjoy DLC I may choose to hire an additional 20 people with the expected profits of the DLC. If those 20 people are able to complete the bulk of their work before the game is certified it makes all the sense in the world to include it on the disc to minimize the amount of content that needs to be downloaded and stored on my customer's machines.
Yes but it is not just the burger with tomatoes optional, it is a burger with tomatoes on it when it is given to you and you are told you have no right to eat them. I honestly dont see why your so eager to push an example that does not fit with the disk/dlc situation. It seems like when you focus on the burger example your intentionally ignoring the fact that the DLC content is on the disk. Its not something seperate it is all part of the original content you have already purchased.
The burger analogy is just a bit flawed (all analogies have their shortcomings, it's why they are analogies). The difference is that witha burger you're paying for the burger. With the game disc, you're not paying for the disk, but rather the content on it. It's different because digital delivery is different than selling physical goods. A disk is able to contain more content than was budgeted in for the $60 you paid. The $60 got you the base game, which is full and complete. The added content wasn't made by the same team, and thus EA hasn't accounted for their paychecks yet when you pay the $60. Their bet is that enough people will be willing to pay the extra $10 to unlock the stuff that cost them more money. If they didn't think that was a good bet, they wouldn't have made the investment to create the extra content and instead would have left it on the proverbial cutting room floor.
Of course people are willing to, when I buy a game I want the full experience, charging me a 2nd time for content that is part of the original content is just skuzzy. I supported all ME2 DLC because I think DLC can be a really posative thing, this is clearly not a posative thing for the consumer, and ignoring that companys can and will purposely cut content for the sake of higher profit is just asking to have your wallet reaped. Dont act like EA is innocent in the manner, they will do what they need to for more profit, believing that they are doing it for your benefit is just begging to be taken advantage of.
Yes but it is not just the burger with tomatoes optional, it is a burger with tomatoes on it when it is given to you and you are told you have no right to eat them. I honestly dont see why your so eager to push an example that does not fit with the disk/dlc situation. It seems like when you focus on the burger example your intentionally ignoring the fact that the DLC content is on the disk. Its not something seperate it is all part of the original content you have already purchased.
The burger analogy is just a bit flawed (all analogies have their shortcomings, it's why they are analogies). The difference is that witha burger you're paying for the burger. With the game disc, you're not paying for the disk, but rather the content on it. It's different because digital delivery is different than selling physical goods. A disk is able to contain more content than was budgeted in for the $60 you paid. The $60 got you the base game, which is full and complete. The added content wasn't made by the same team, and thus EA hasn't accounted for their paychecks yet when you pay the $60. Their bet is that enough people will be willing to pay the extra $10 to unlock the stuff that cost them more money. If they didn't think that was a good bet, they wouldn't have made the investment to create the extra content and instead would have left it on the proverbial cutting room floor.
Of course people are willing to, when I buy a game I want the full experience, charging me a 2nd time for content that is part of the original content is just skuzzy. I supported all ME2 DLC because I think DLC can be a really posative thing, this is clearly not a posative thing for the consumer, and ignoring that companys can and will purposely cut content for the sake of higher profit is just asking to have your wallet reaped. Dont act like EA is innocent in the manner, they will do what they need to for more profit, believing that they are doing it for your benefit is just begging to be taken advantage of.
Dlc should be used to create fresh new content after the game has already been completed. Not used to sell parts of the game that have been removed, so EAware can make an extra profit
We can speculate all we want but heres what we know: Javic was on the original disk. He is part of the original content and was removed for the intent of making more profit. You can spin it all you want and say they have a right to or that this is a good thing, but I still see this as asking me to pay the full price of a game and more later for what is actually part of the original game. They could cut out 90% of the game and there would still be people out there arguing that its "still a complete game" and its frustrating to see people welcome this practice with open arms.
You are still assuming that he was developed by the team budgeted to do the game and not the team budgeted to do DLC. If I am making a game and I know that I will hire 100 people to develop it, that's my in my budget. If I decide that some fans would enjoy DLC I may choose to hire an additional 20 people with the expected profits of the DLC. If those 20 people are able to complete the bulk of their work before the game is certified it makes all the sense in the world to include it on the disc to minimize the amount of content that needs to be downloaded and stored on my customer's machines.
Great, except Javic was part of the original game. Developed for the original game, not as some afterthought by another party. The same people who worked on the rest of the game make Javic's character and in the later stage started calling it a side product. Change some things to make sure he is not directly needed for any major plot points (which he actually adds more to the game then just about any other character in the squad) and peel it from the original product and call it extra effort.
Of course people are willing to, when I buy a game I want the full experience, charging me a 2nd time for content that is part of the original content is just skuzzy. I supported all ME2 DLC because I think DLC can be a really posative thing, this is clearly not a posative thing for the consumer, and ignoring that companys can and will purposely cut content for the sake of higher profit is just asking to have your wallet reaped. Dont act like EA is innocent in the manner, they will do what they need to for more profit, believing that they are doing it for your benefit is just begging to be taken advantage of.
We're going to have to agree to disagree about whether or not Javik was meant to be "included in the full game." My point is that I assume he was cut early on to make way for other content, while you contend that he was fully budgeted in and cut only to increase profits. Neither of us know because we weren't there, so we can't settle the dispute.
I do just want to touch on the last part of you comment:
Dont act like EA is innocent in the manner, they will do what they need to for more profit, believing that they are doing it for your benefit is just begging to be taken advantage of.
I don't understand this thinking. EA is a company. They create products which they offer for me to buy. There are LOTS of competitors in the market and I don't have to buy from EA. EA will only get me to buy their products if they create products that are compelling to me as a consumer. The general assumption about a market-based economy is that a transaction will usually benefit BOTH parties. There's always a balance to be found, but in the case of a company in a highly competitive space selling a luxery entertainment product, the chances that the arrangement is mutually beneficial are high. The game industry has a relatively low barrier to entry, which keeps competition fierce so I am not worried about being taken advantage.
Modifié par wirelesstkd, 05 septembre 2012 - 01:08 .
Of course people are willing to, when I buy a game I want the full experience, charging me a 2nd time for content that is part of the original content is just skuzzy. I supported all ME2 DLC because I think DLC can be a really posative thing, this is clearly not a posative thing for the consumer, and ignoring that companys can and will purposely cut content for the sake of higher profit is just asking to have your wallet reaped. Dont act like EA is innocent in the manner, they will do what they need to for more profit, believing that they are doing it for your benefit is just begging to be taken advantage of.
We're going to have to agree to disagree about whether or not Javik was meant to be "included in the full game." My point is that I assume he was cut early on to make way for other content, while you contend that he was fully budgeted in and cut only to increase profits. Neither of us know because we weren't there, so we can't settle the dispute.
I do just want to touch on the last part of you comment:
Dont act like EA is innocent in the manner, they will do what they need to for more profit, believing that they are doing it for your benefit is just begging to be taken advantage of.
I don't understand this thinking. EA is a company. They create products which they offer for me to buy. There are LOTS of competitors in the market and I don't have to buy from EA. EA will only get me to buy their products if they create products that are compelling to me as a consumer. The general assumption about a market-based economy is that a transaction will usually benefit BOTH parties. There's always a balance to be found, but in the case of a company in a highly competitive space selling a luxery entertainment product, the chances that the arrangement is mutually beneficial are high. The game industry has a relatively low barrier to entry, which keep competition fierce so I am not worried about being taken advantage.
Based on just about everything I have ever seen with EA and what I have heard regarding Javic in the storyline I have no reason to believe they would not do it. A couple of key statements by John Riccitiello come to mind in terms of viewing us as anything more then walking wallets. And I would not say EA is known for its "quality products" but that just comes down to my opinion. Sure they love to make a game look pretty and hype the **** out of it, but in terms of quality.... well lets just agree to disagree on the matter. I just don't really see this as beneficial in terms of seeing games that exist for a purpose other then profit. There are games that exist to make profit, and ones that exist to be considered "art" if you will. ME3 trys so hard to justify why it should be both.
Isichar wrote... charging me a 2nd time for content that is part of the original content is just skuzzy.
Sigh... Its not part of the orignal content, this is pre planned premium content that you have to pay for.
Turning it into a DLC was planned after the content had already been started because we already know Javic was already planned in the original game. At best it was modified and adjusted to be acceptable as DLC.
I just don't really see this as beneficial in terms of seeing games that exist for a purpose other then profit. There are games that exist to make profit, and ones that exist to be considered "art" if you will. ME3 trys so hard to justify why it should be both.
Whenever someone is fronting millions of dollars to let someone develop a piece of art it's with the expectation that there will be a profit down the road. Profit is the only motivator for people risk their money on developing anything. Without a profit-driven economy there would be no innovation and no large scale art efforts like games and movies.
Bioware have a history of creating Day 1 additional companions:
DAO:Shale
ME2:Zaeed
DA2:Prince Sebastian
So why would they change their long standing practice for Mass Effect 3? Why is anybody surprised by it? Extra companions are worth their most the earlier in the game you aquire them, Makes perfect sense to me to release it when the majority of the audience are at the start of their game experience. I bet Zaeed got took more missions than Kasumi by most people.
I just don't really see this as beneficial in terms of seeing games that exist for a purpose other then profit. There are games that exist to make profit, and ones that exist to be considered "art" if you will. ME3 trys so hard to justify why it should be both.
Whenever someone is fronting millions of dollars to let someone develop a piece of art it's with the expectation that there will be a profit down the road. Profit is the only motivator for people risk their money on developing anything. Without a profit-driven economy there would be no innovation and no large scale art efforts like games and movies.
If I were to ask which is more important to mass effect which would you say: art or profit? Because the answer seems to jump back and forth quite conveniently for the company. When I decided whether or not I want the ME3 game or the ME3 game with DLC on the opening day which one is the more complete experience? Which one must I buy to fully appreciate mass effect 3 the way it was intended?
Bioware have a history of creating Day 1 additional companions: DAO:Shale ME2:Zaeed DA2:Prince Sebastian
So why would they change their long standing practice for Mass Effect 3? Why is anybody surprised by it? Extra companions are worth their most the earlier in the game you aquire them, Makes perfect sense to me to release it when the majority of the audience are at the start of their game experience. I bet Zaeed got took more missions than Kasumi by most people.
Err you may wanna look up the individual situations, to some extent you can still argue its a bad thing but the circumstances around those DLC's are a bit different. Totalbiscuit talks about that question specifically in one of his mailbox vids.
I just don't really see this as beneficial in terms of seeing games that exist for a purpose other then profit. There are games that exist to make profit, and ones that exist to be considered "art" if you will. ME3 trys so hard to justify why it should be both.
Whenever someone is fronting millions of dollars to let someone develop a piece of art it's with the expectation that there will be a profit down the road. Profit is the only motivator for people risk their money on developing anything. Without a profit-driven economy there would be no innovation and no large scale art efforts like games and movies.
If I were to ask which is more important to mass effect which would you say: art or profit? Because the answer seems to jump back and forth quite conveniently for the company. When I decided whether or not I want the ME3 game or the ME3 game with DLC on the opening day which one is the more complete experience? Which one must I buy to fully appreciate mass effect 3 the way it was intended?
It was intended to be a full experience with or without Javik.
I just don't really see this as beneficial in terms of seeing games that exist for a purpose other then profit. There are games that exist to make profit, and ones that exist to be considered "art" if you will. ME3 trys so hard to justify why it should be both.
Whenever someone is fronting millions of dollars to let someone develop a piece of art it's with the expectation that there will be a profit down the road. Profit is the only motivator for people risk their money on developing anything. Without a profit-driven economy there would be no innovation and no large scale art efforts like games and movies.
If I were to ask which is more important to mass effect which would you say: art or profit? Because the answer seems to jump back and forth quite conveniently for the company. When I decided whether or not I want the ME3 game or the ME3 game with DLC on the opening day which one is the more complete experience? Which one must I buy to fully appreciate mass effect 3 the way it was intended?
It was intended to be a full experience with or without Javik.
Your definition of a full experience and mine differ it seems. They know it adds to the game, and that people are willing to pay more for him. Making a DLC desirable is not the issue of course, doing so with what is clearly part of the original content as I see it, is.
Bioware have a history of creating Day 1 additional companions: DAO:Shale ME2:Zaeed DA2:Prince Sebastian
So why would they change their long standing practice for Mass Effect 3? Why is anybody surprised by it? Extra companions are worth their most the earlier in the game you aquire them, Makes perfect sense to me to release it when the majority of the audience are at the start of their game experience. I bet Zaeed got took more missions than Kasumi by most people.
Err you may wanna look up the individual situations, to some extent you can still argue its a bad thing but the circumstances around those DLC's are a bit different. Totalbiscuit talks about that question specifically in one of his mailbox vids.
Not to your average consumer, Day 1 DLC featuring a companion character is all they see. (TBH I have no idea who Totalbiscuit is).
Retour en haut
