236 réponses à ce sujet

[Blight Nug]

I don't like DLCs, but not because I think its a evil plot to grab money and undermine the consumers.
I simply want the complete experience on my first playthrough. I don't want to finish a game, and come back several months later just because another 2 hours of content has been released. I don't have the time nor desire to replay a game multiple times whenever something new is added.

I didn't bother with ME3's DLCs because by the time they came out, I was done with the game and moved on.
As a result, I just abstain from playing a game until all the DLCs are completed.

[deuce985]

Blight Nug wrote...

I don't like DLCs, but not because I think its a evil plot to grab money and undermine the consumers.
I simply want the complete experience on my first playthrough. I don't want to finish a game, and come back several months later just because another 2 hours of content has been released. I don't have the time nor desire to replay a game multiple times whenever something new is added.

I didn't bother with ME3's DLCs because by the time they came out, I was done with the game and moved on.
As a result, I just abstain from playing a game until all the DLCs are completed.

I don't like DLC for a different reason - splitting communities up. One reason I really appreciate how Bioware handles their MP DLC. They give it all out free.

As an example, I have Borderlands 2 on my PS3 and all my buddies have been buying the DLC. So now, I can't play with them because they're always playing that DLC. Borderlands 2 is shooting their DLC out fast too. It's frustrating because I have a hard time justify buying a bunch of DLC when I already spent $60 on the game. Plus I have a massive backlog i already own and still need to buy Far Cry 3.

I'll probably buy ME3 Omega DLC because I've spent more hours in ME3 than any game this year. I have no problem with SP DLC like that. I do have a problem with MP DLC that comes out fast and forces me to pay for it. All it does is segment the community aspect of gaming up. It sucks. I either buy the DLC and none of my buddies have it or I don't buy it and all my buddies get it...

I wish more game devs realized this. DLC also actually kills MP games off faster because you kill the matchmaking. Another reason to hate it(unless you're CoD). More developers need to follow ME3's design. But then again, I guess not many devs have the luxury of making people pay for SP DLC that anyone would care about. Bioware probably gives MP DLC out free to keep people interested in buying the SP DLC. Nobody is going to buy Call of Duty SP DLC if it came out...

Modifié par deuce985, 22 novembre 2012 - 05:17 .

[Plaintiff]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

The author of this article is such a self-entitled whiner.

"How dare a company sell a thing to people who really, really want it!"

That piece of sarcasm really highlights how exploitation can become rampant.

Gamers are not in any way being exploited. It's reprehensible and insulting that anyone would equate genuine abuse and suffering to something so incredibly trivial.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Plaintiff wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

The author of this article is such a self-entitled whiner.

"How dare a company sell a thing to people who really, really want it!"

That piece of sarcasm really highlights how exploitation can become rampant.

Gamers are not in any way being exploited. It's reprehensible and insulting that anyone would equate genuine abuse and suffering to something so incredibly trivial.

Wait, what? You think the word "exploitation" can only be used in serious scenarios? I sure hope you were referring to something else said in this thread, because that is utterly ridiculous.

And if you can't see the potential exploitation that can take place, well, no one can convince, as it's something you see or choose not to see.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...No. Making the most ethereal and mysterious race in Mass Effect a DLC was for the money. If Bioware were to sell James as DLC, you can guarantee the sales would have been exponentially less. You can do this whole "Well what is important? Whom defines importance? Is this really reality?" stuff all day, but this is just plain as day.

Indeed, it was for the money.  It's almost like we understood that fans would like to get more details of the protheans.

I'm baffled that people would have preferred us to not make From Ashes though, since that's what the alternative is.

No it isn't. Stop with these false dichotomies. The process is far more intricate than you keep touting. Day 1 DLC isn't always a money grab, but is also isn't always cut content that can only be put in if worked on after the game, like Shale. DLC now is set aside from conception. Developers will plan out what will be in the game, and what will be DLC. Not always, but it is extremely naive to think that this doesn't happen.

Setting aside Javik as DLC from conception as opposed to James, IS A MONETARY DECISION. I can't believe that you believe DLC is and always be this innocent practise just for the fans. It's largely a business decision, and not all DLC is made like Shale was. I have no proof that Javik is not like Shale, but i highly, highly doubt he was. Especially given the insight provided into just how this DLC came to be.

Seriously man. You can't expect us to believe Day 1 DLC is "just for the fans". Money comes into it, and certain decision are bound to be made to maximize the interest in the DLC; decisions that can likely compromise the original intent of certain game content.

[ledod]

Lazengan wrote...

 http://calibur.8wayr...isa-jpeg.22416/

True dat, fo' real.

[Eurypterid]

The problem I find with most DLC now is the amount of content you get is far less than what you'd get in a traditional, old-style expansion pack. And for greater cost overall. (i.e., if you buy all DLC that amounts to what you'd generally get as an expansion, you'll end up paying far more).

So all I can say about DLC is it's having probably the opposite effect on me that devs/publishers want. It doesn't make me want to buy the game and all the extra content as it comes out. What happens is, if I know a game is going to have DLC released for it, I'll wait until there's a GotY/Ultimate edition on sale* with all the content (or at least, everything 'meaty', which IMO doesn't include appearance packs and the like).

So, in effect, you lose out on the initial sale of the game at release and instead get less from me at a far later date.

And if there's no compilation pack? I likely won't buy at all.

*Why on sale? Well, if I've waited long enough for a compilation to come out, I'm not in any hurry to play the game anyway, so I'll just wait for a sale.

[Gatt9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Well, the protheans were very important to ME and ME2's plots. They made us care about the protheans, why sideline it if not for more money?

So we shouldn't release DLC for stuff that people find interesting and care armor? Think clearly about the message you're sending with this current post, because what I interpret you saying is: "If it's something I want and care about, I don't want it to be a part of DLC."

If it's simply a perspective of "This is content I really want," it's not much of an argument against it being DLC. It makes sense for you to want as much as you can get for as little cost as possible, so I understand your perspective. How do you quantify whether or not something is "essential" to the game. I disagree that Javik is essential. I do agree that he's interesting. I'd prefer to make DLC people find interesting instead of uninteresting. So how do we reconcile this?


(And to everyone else, suggest a forum for this to move to. This isn't a DA3 thread, but I don't want to stop the discussion).

If it's done on Day 1,  it should not be DLC.  Javik is a perfect example,  because he has numerous banters with the party that clearly show he was developed right along side the game,  not after as Mr. Woo and Priestly kept trying to claim,  because Bioware did not bring back all of the voice actors in the 4 weeks prior to release to record new lines for the DLC (As that would likely invalidate the cerfitication process and restart it if I understand it correctly).

EA has a long standing history of trying to use DLC as a revenue initiative,  originally to counter used game sales as we saw with DAO and ME2.  Then it became Hostage Content in Dead Space 2 where stuff on disc was locked away unless you bought the pre-release DLC.  Then it became ME3's forced multiplayer and Online Pass combined with Javik who was very clearly cut from the main game to make a $60 game cost $70 for those of us who did buy the game new.

The behavior is extremely anti-consumer,  very obviously intended to squeeze extra money from Players by holding content hostage or telling them at the register that their $60 doesn't get them the whole game,  and very obviously carefully planned out to force consumers to pay.

So with respect,  consider the message your company is sending to us,  because what I and more than a few others interpret it is "We intend to find ways to force you to pay more money than just the base cost of the game.",  especially since it's almost been a year and your company continues to refuse to address the fraudulent statements of "Multiplayer is not required to get the best ending" upon which many made purchasing decisions,  all because your company decided it wanted to make sure used game buyers were virtually forced to pay extra.

From there,  we can start taking a look at the hundreds of dollars in expenses for additional DLC that your company tagged onto multiple completely unrelated products for the ME3 release,  in order to try to get people to buy a bunch of "Merchandising initiatives",  instead of including it on the disc..

So again,  with respect,  while working for a company who is hands down the worst in the Industry about disrepectful DLC,  I find it extremely difficult to take your arguements as anything other than defending anti-consumer policies.

Modifié par Gatt9, 22 novembre 2012 - 06:29 .

[Cutlass Jack]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

No it isn't. Stop with these false dichotomies. The process is far more intricate than you keep touting. Day 1 DLC isn't always a money grab, but is also isn't always cut content that can only be put in if worked on after the game, like Shale. DLC now is set aside from conception. Developers will plan out what will be in the game, and what will be DLC. Not always, but it is extremely naive to think that this doesn't happen.

Setting aside Javik as DLC from conception as opposed to James, IS A MONETARY DECISION. I can't believe that you believe DLC is and always be this innocent practise just for the fans. It's largely a business decision, and not all DLC is made like Shale was. I have no proof that Javik is not like Shale, but i highly, highly doubt he was. Especially given the insight provided into just how this DLC came to be.

Seriously man. You can't expect us to believe Day 1 DLC is "just for the fans". Money comes into it, and certain decision are bound to be made to maximize the interest in the DLC; decisions that can likely compromise the original intent of certain game content.

Its kind of fun that you cut all the parts out of his post that discuss the money and budgets then lecture him about it really being about the money.

[VanDraegon]

Gatt9 wrote...

others interpret it is "We intend to find ways to force you to pay more money than just the base cost of the game.", 

Odd, i never heard anything about armed gangs of Bioware enforcers showing up at gamers homes to force them to purchase DLC.

*Enforcer Gaider: "Ok pal, we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way."  *cracks knuckles*

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you're upset because the idea of Day One DLC pisses you off, then fine.  That's a valid perspective and it's easy to understand that.

Is it?  I don't understand that position at all.

I've been calling for this very thing for some time.  I've been saying that modern game prices are too low (historically, they were much higher).  I've been decrying the need to pay for features I don't want.  Day One DLC solves both problems; I love Day One DLC.

I have no idea why people object to it.

[slimgrin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you're upset because the idea of Day One DLC pisses you off, then fine.  That's a valid perspective and it's easy to understand that.

Is it?  I don't understand that position at all.

I've been calling for this very thing for some time.  I've been saying that modern game prices are too low (historically, they were much higher).  I've been decrying the need to pay for features I don't want.  Day One DLC solves both problems; I love Day One DLC.

I have no idea why people object to it.

Sylvius...trolling? 

[Dhiro]

slimgrin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you're upset because the idea of Day One DLC pisses you off, then fine.  That's a valid perspective and it's easy to understand that.

Is it?  I don't understand that position at all.

I've been calling for this very thing for some time.  I've been saying that modern game prices are too low (historically, they were much higher).  I've been decrying the need to pay for features I don't want.  Day One DLC solves both problems; I love Day One DLC.

I have no idea why people object to it.

Sylvius...trolling? 

It is both terrifying and arousing.

[Dannybare]

I generally hold the beleif that if DLC that has been developed along with the main game such as Javik should be either included in the main game or should be released free, however I have no problem with being charged for DLC that has been made after the game has been released such as Leviathan as this is content I have not payed for.

[DragonAgeLegend]

Kileyan wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

wesam987 wrote...

wolfsite wrote...

wesam987 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

wesam987 wrote...

I think an extra character would be essential and shouldn't be bought. That's just my opinion. Basically if characters are becoming sold separately to the game then you're missing out on some part of the game others may experience. Javik, for example is a character sold in ME3, he is basically essential, he gives information on the Protheans and what happened when the reapers invaded. That's an important part of what ME is about. Also, we are already limited in the characters we can choose in ME3 compared to that of ME2.

You don't need Javik to complete the game, nor is his content of any real importance to the plot. So no, it isn't essential.

Javik is a prothean with prothean knowldege. Protheans are a major part of the ME series, selling Javik separatley was a mistake. He is essential because of the lore that he provides to Shepard, he should have not been sold as DLC, especially day 1 of release. I agree, he is not needed to complete the game but he is equally as important as all the other squadmates especially with the information he provides. 

Again what information?  He adds nothing that can help defeat the Reapers, all he talks about is how they were defeated, we already knew this, and how the Protheans influenced certain races can be seen in different areas of the series from ME1 to ME3 if you are paying attention, don't need Javik talling people what's already in front of you.

We learn more about the Protheans, Javik provides new information on the lore of ME that is quite important to any ME fan and wouldn't be known if you never had him, which is kind of a rip off.   

The information he provides is here:
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Javik

I have the DLC and have gone through all the data.  Right off the bat since you just linked to a site that already has all the information available all the lore people can get the information without having to buy the DLC.  But it still isn't essential to ME3.  How does knowing the Protheans were close minded and arrogant help stop the Reapers?  Hoe does having someone questioning everything you do that goes against his views, which failed, aid in defesting the Reapers?

He isn't important to completing the game and any lore people could be interested is easily availablr without buying the DLC.

Dude, you are ignoring what is being said. The previous games make the Protheans central to the plot. We fight among their ruins, we talk to their ai's, we see their world through knowledge planted in the protagonists brains. The protheans are not just some random bit of lore.

They are an important part of the game whether they are the answer to the reapers defeat or not. You seem unable to understand that there can be an important aspect to the game, that has NOTHING to do with beating the reapers. Honestly they are just something most big fans wished to see, ever since they saw the hibernation chambers, why can't there be another chamber with some power left, the fun and interesting possibility of meeting a person from the past!

Well there is a living Prothean if you pay.......

You seem to be stuck on the idea that nothing can be important or essential to a game unless it helps complete the end goal. In this case, that makes absolutely nothing in the entire trilogy important, since none of it affects the last 15 minutes. Not a single character in ME is important, because not a single one of them know of the Starkid and have any useful input.

That leaves us with a lot of content that is done simply because it is interesting and make for a good game, and I can't think of anything more interesting and vital to the content than meeting a living Prothean.

Thank the maker for your reply Kileyan, I was finding it hard disussing this with 'him' as I basically said everything I needed too and was struggling in making them understand. 

[DragonAgeLegend]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...No. Making the most ethereal and mysterious race in Mass Effect a DLC was for the money. If Bioware were to sell James as DLC, you can guarantee the sales would have been exponentially less. You can do this whole "Well what is important? Whom defines importance? Is this really reality?" stuff all day, but this is just plain as day.

Indeed, it was for the money.  It's almost like we understood that fans would like to get more details of the protheans.

I'm baffled that people would have preferred us to not make From Ashes though, since that's what the alternative is.

It is to make money, and as such it is specifically created with its own budget and resource allocation and is financially held to account in terms of its financial success.

People have this false equivalence that if the concept of DLC didn't exist, they would have gotten Javik for free.  This is not the case.  They also have this incorrect notion that because DLC exists, content is intentionally stripped from the game in order to populate DLC, and frequently feel that until DLC came along, the idea of bringing cut content into the game just didn't occur.  Except, it did.  All the time.  Expansion packs frequently incorporate ideas that were cut from the original game.  Someone posts a witty picture of the Mona Lisa in 1999 with "expansion packs" that are new paintings, except that they ostensibly refuse to believe that something like Tales of the Sword Coast (the expansion pack for Baldur's Gate) features a ton of content that was cut from Baldur's Gate.  It's even integrated into the main campaign of Baldur's Gate in much the same way that DLC is today as well.


Honestly, if From Ashes were being released today and you're just getting to experience this new content right now, it seems baffling to me that someone would be upset and refuse it because it should have been in the main game.  Interesting content that relates to the story does not strike me as a compelling reason for something to be "essential" to the game.  If that's the case, you're placing a restriction that will prevent players from getting interesting content that relates to the story.  You're forcing us to only create DLC content that people are less interested in playing.

It's important to be clear what one is arguing for.  If you're upset because the idea of Day One DLC pisses you off, then fine.  That's a valid perspective and it's easy to understand that.  If you're upset because you think that the only time we can release interesting content is at release, I really struggle to understand your perspective.


Also, moving this to off-topic.

But do you undertand why everyone is even discussing this issue? If it didn't anoy people then it wouldn't be disussed, there's obviously a reason. Try to look at it from a players perspective not a dev's. 

[ioannisdenton]

Dlc when done right can be great. The missing link, LOTSB, both DA2 dlcs (best by bioware), Leleianas's song (and arrival since i relly liked it despite i's flaws, it's atmosphere is fantastic) really add to the game and everytime play these games i play them all.
Now Dlcs like map packs and CHARACTERS should be free.
If at one point in the future the servers are gone how the hell i am going o=to replay all these dlcs?? I paid for something i won't own in the future!

[Lazengan]

ioannisdenton wrote...

Dlc when done right can be great. The missing link, LOTSB, both DA2 dlcs (best by bioware), Leleianas's song (and arrival since i relly liked it despite i's flaws, it's atmosphere is fantastic) really add to the game and everytime play these games i play them all.
Now Dlcs like map packs and CHARACTERS should be free.
If at one point in the future the servers are gone how the hell i am going o=to replay all these dlcs?? I paid for something i won't own in the future!

Bioware should do what New Vegas did

Hint on the DLCs in the main story

and then make them full fleshed out stories

Also each DLC referenced each other and culminated up to the 4th and final DLC

[abnocte]

I don't really like the idea of DLC and if I had to choose between:

1.- paying 100€ for a videogame on release day but get all the content
or
 2.- paying 60€ for a videogame and then buying DLC that ( I consider ) adds to the main game and end up with a total cost of 100€

I prefer the first. Why? because the first options doesn't make me feel like I've been cheated.
It is just a matter of perception.

In the end, after a discussion recently in the ME3 forums I've decided that I won't buy a videogame until all its story DLC is released. Then, and only then I will buy the game+DLC so I experience the game as whole from the moment of purchase.

Now there's only one remaining thing that upsets me about DLC: the purchase system.

Having to buy points that cost X€ that then I have to exchange for the DLC is a total rip off. I have 80 points since before Arrival was released that I haven't used. I can't buy a thing with only 80 points so I'm forced to buy more points, but given the DLC prices I can only end in two situations:

a.- Have X points remaining... once again.
b.- Buy DLC I do NOT want so I match the number of points I have with the cost.

Both situations end up in a win-win situation for EA. Now that is customers abuse.
It pisses me of even more that the fact that if you are a PC player DLC never goes on sale.

[Fishy]

Developper Boss man : Guy we need to cut this out for the final product. i know some of you worked hard on it, but we feel we need to stop it and work on more stuff we deem more important at the time.

Developper cut out stuff : Well that suck.

Publisher : WAIT !!!! Do this stuff is quality stuff ?

Developper cut out stuff : I think it's great

Publisher : do you think if you finish it out , polish it and add more stuff to it .. You could sell it has a DLC for 10 bucks ?

Developper cut out stuff: Sure .. If we have time.

Publisher : GOOD GOOD GOOD .. hehehehe .... HEHEHEHE..... HAHAHAHAHAHHA

Developper not cut out stuff anymore : ''Damn those guy. I could see the drool coming out of his mouth''

Developper Boss man: Okay but, what about us ? We need more people to....

Publisher: Bah .. Just cut something out .. Like the ending. You're professional . You can work with stress.

Fan: WAHH WAHHH WAHH .. THE ENDING SUCKED.

Modifié par Suprez30, 22 novembre 2012 - 02:09 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you're upset because the idea of Day One DLC pisses you off, then fine.  That's a valid perspective and it's easy to understand that.

Is it?  I don't understand that position at all.

I've been calling for this very thing for some time.  I've been saying that modern game prices are too low (historically, they were much higher).  I've been decrying the need to pay for features I don't want.  Day One DLC solves both problems; I love Day One DLC.

I have no idea why people object to it.

I would not object to a $70 (or higher) sticker price for games. Games have been artificially kept at one sticker price, despite an ever-increasing cost in technology and development. It wasn't until recently that there were cheaper game alternatives available, so every game was between $40-$60, despite the length, quality and replayability. Now that we have mobile games, digital downloads, Kickstarters, episodic games (like the Walking Dead), we are now seeing much more variability in pricing down, but still zero examples of pricing up. At least directly, that is. What we are seeing more and more of is less upfront pricing for AAA games, but instead more DLC, MP microtransactions and extra add ons for things like skins, appearances, extra characters, etc. This is seen as 'nickel-and-diming' by the average gamer, who wouldn't often mind paying $70 for a game if the content was worth it. A game like DA:O or Skyrim is something I'd gladly pay premium price for, largely because its huge content amount and replayability. Similarly, I would never pay more than $40 for an 'on-the-rails' experience like the Uncharted games, which have no replay value, but only a one time (albeit excellent) ride. 

If developers really started advertising shelf life and replay value as just that - a value that the market would be willing to pay for, then developers could be more upfront with how they price their games. 

As is, can anyone REALLY say that $15, the price of a quarter of the original game, is worth it for a five hour DLC? A companion, of which there is nearly a dozen, a mission involved with their recruitment and a small handful of equipment/items and dialogue do not equate the value of 25% of the main game. I realize that some of the pricing points are based off of XBL and the PSN, but at the same time, there is plenty of free content on these networks, so saying that they charge exhortbant amounts and that is the reason sales are never offered seems a little incongruent. 

All that being said, my biggest problem is not DLC in itself, but Day One DLC. It is going to be viewed as near-criminal to offer extra story content for premium content THE VERY DAY OF RELEASE, no matter how much companies try and explain their methods and reasons. No other medium does this, where extra story is charged more on the very first day, in any other industry. That's why players protest so much - because its not 'business as usual' for any other entertainment industry to make you pay more money for story on the very first day that story is available. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 23 novembre 2012 - 01:39 .

[slimgrin]

Barring the few devs devoted to PC development ( Blizzard, Egosoft, Larian, CDPR) I think expansions will eventually be phased out. It's not financially viable for most companies. And Sylvius is actually right about game prices; I hate to say it but they need to go up. As for DLC, it's all about pricing it right. You look at Just Cause or SR3 who doled out weapons and vehicles for $2 a pop, or DX:HR which had beefier dlc's that were close to 6 hrs in length. These guys are doing it right. Bioware had the right idea with ME2 - getting Zaeed and an entire mission for free if you buy the game new. But then they've sold plenty of lame re-skins and outfits, or short missions that they've charged way too much for.

Modifié par slimgrin, 22 novembre 2012 - 03:54 .

[Eurypterid]

slimgrin wrote...

Barring the few devs devoted to PC development ( Blizzard, Egosoft, Larian, CDPR) I think expansions will eventually be phased out. It's not financially viable for most companies. And Sylvius is actually right about game prices; I hate to say it but they need to go up.

I'm not convinced. Distribution is rapidly changing to predominantly digital for PC games, and perhaps exclusively in the not too distant future. That cuts out a whole lot of profit reduction, which means much more profit per unit sold. Is it enough to offset the rising costs of production? I don't know, but as I said, I'm not convinced prices need to go up.

[Gatt9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

If you're upset because the idea of Day One DLC pisses you off, then fine.  That's a valid perspective and it's easy to understand that.

Is it?  I don't understand that position at all.

I've been calling for this very thing for some time.  I've been saying that modern game prices are too low (historically, they were much higher).  I've been decrying the need to pay for features I don't want.  Day One DLC solves both problems; I love Day One DLC.

I have no idea why people object to it.

I would not object to a $70 (or higher) sticker price for games. Games have been artificially kept at one sticker price, despite an ever-increasing cost in technology and development. It wasn't until recently that there were cheaper game alternatives available, so every game was between $40-$60, despite the length, quality and replayability. Now that we have mobile games, digital downloads, Kickstarters, episodic games (like the Walking Dead), we are now seeing much more variability in pricing down, but still zero examples of pricing up. At least directly, that is. What we are seeing more and more of is less upfront pricing for AAA games, but instead more DLC, MP microtransactions and extra add ons for things like skins, appearances, extra characters, etc. This is seen as 'nickel-and-diming' by the average gamer, who wouldn't often mind paying $70 for a game if the content was worth it. A game like DA:O or Skyrim is something I'd gladly pay premium price for, largely because its huge content amount and replayability. Similarly, I would never pay more than $40 for an 'on-the-rails' experience like the Uncharted games, which have no replay value, but only a one time (albeit excellent) ride. 

You have to keep in mind,  there's an *enourmous* amount of FUD that goes into "Game development costs have skyrocketed!".

If you look through the credits for any given game,  you'll find myriad people credited and therefore very likely counted in the budget of a game that don't actually have anything to do with the game's development.  Halo 3's a great example,  they even counted their lawyers and HR department.

http://halo.wikia.co.../Halo_3_Credits

If you look through that list,  you can easily pick out 30 or more people credited who didn't actually contribute to the development of the game.  So how badly is the budget skyrocketing versus the budget being padded by Publisher overhead?  Brian Fargo estimated the Publishers alone add ~25% to the cost of development,  and none of those people actually do development.

Then there's this modern "requirement" of full voice acting,  which consumes an enourmous amount of money just because some small number of people are horribly bothred by reading (An essential life skill I must add).

It's very likely that the real cost of game development is half of what Publishers claim it is,  the other half going to people who don't develop anything,  and features Marketing demands be present because some small number of people have an aversion to reading.

We've hit a point where the Publisher itself is now a bloated parasite trying to spread it's cost across many titles and hide it's effect from everyone.

So I'd argue that it isn't the game prices that need to go up,  it's that Publishers need to eliminate all of thier waste and retain only the departments needed for the job they're supposed to be doing (Marketing,  Sales) and get the heck out of Project Management and dictating design.

I don't think the consumers need to shoulder the burden of a handful of cooporations that don't produce anything except huge overhead and obviously bad business plans.

Modifié par Gatt9, 22 novembre 2012 - 04:34 .