236 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Prices have little to do with developlment costs. I'm saying prices are too low because they're less than half of what they were in 1985 (inflation adjusted). Since a dollar is worth quite a bit less now than it was then, a $60 price tag is a lower price now than it was then.

Steam has shown us that, at low prices, there's quite a lot of price elasticity in the demand for games, but history tells us that this isn't true at higher prices.

[Dean_the_Young]

Darth Death wrote...

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?

You shouldn't release day one DLC period, especially if people have to pay separately in order to obtain it. It leaves a very bad impression upon customer experience - no one likes it. Whatever happened to "the customer is always right"? Or did BioWare forget?

Presumably the customer forgot that there are other customers who disagree with him or her.

[Dean_the_Young]

EDIT: After reading through the entire thread, never mind.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 novembre 2012 - 05:59 .

[Dominus]

I read through the article. I get what he's trying to convey, but it's not something I wholeheartedly agree with.

Just playing through all three games in the series left many holes, so those who cared the most were forced to pay even more money to fill in the many blanks.

To the resourceful internet user, not really. If you're hungering purely for the lore and nothing gameplay related, Try Wikipedia/YouTube Playthroughs for your answers. The last BioWare DLC I bought was Arrival, and haven't touched another since.

There are more examples of how this disrespectful relationship has played out through the years, including season passes that urge you to shell out money for unannounced content and on-disc DLC that makes you pay to unlock content that's already on the disc, and it's clearly becoming a serious problem.

For On-Disc DLC, I might agree to that. As for unannounced content, that's meant to be an intentional discount that benefits both sides. If I bought it, it would come with the intention of buying the oncoming DLC - I'm not being coerced into anything.

I'm saying prices are too low because they're less than half of what they were in 1985 (inflation adjusted).

I recall a statistical analysis GameInformer did with the Nintendo console prices over the years, and the NES console was through the roof(with inflation taken into effect.)

Backstory is told through the items you pick up and the way environments are laid out, so the careful observer can understand where Lordran has been and where it's going just by paying attention.

The level of storylining between a BioWare game and what's done in Demon's Souls/Dark Souls are not going to be on the same standard. I have a hard time seeming droves of Dark Souls fans coming purely for the sake of lore.

Modifié par DominusVita, 22 novembre 2012 - 06:37 .

[Realmzmaster]

The price of games is too low. For example let's step back to 1994 Ultima VIII has be released with a MSRP of $79.95. What did gamers get for their money: 3 manuals, 2 play guides, 2 reference cards, 4 maps, 2 cluebooks and 29 design documents. Now Project Eternity estimates to get the same level of goodies will cost the gamer at retail $140.00 or $110.00 for digital version (no physical goodies only digital).

Developers and Publishers have been trying to hold to the $60.00 price line. The only way to do that is to eliminate terms that could go in the box like comprehensive manuals.

Now you could state that digital copies make it cheaper. The digital copy of Project Eternity will cost $35.00. This is fine if you plan on reading the player, monster and game manual from your screen. If you plan on printing any of that stuff out that factors into the cost not counting the bandwidth you will use to download it.

A Printed retail copy of the game will cost $65.00 and get you a printed manual (everything else will be digital).

I would prefer the developers charge $100.00 and give me the physical goodies. I want an actual manual with design documents like Utlima 7 and other crpgs of that time period.

As far as dlc Ihave no problem with it. The dlc is optional. No one is making anyone purchase it. What is essential to one gamer is not essential to another gamer. I played DAO with out Shale installed. I was able to complete the game with no problem. I played DA2 without the Exiled Prince or Black Emporium installed. I finished the game with no problem. None of the dlc is essential to completing the game.

So I did not feel cheated. I had the right to purchase the dlc or not. I still received a full game. Day 1 dlc does not bother me . I worked in the software industry enough to know what happens.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The price of games is too low. For example let's step back to 1994 Ultima VIII has be released with a MSRP of $79.95. What did gamers get for their money: 3 manuals, 2 play guides, 2 reference cards, 4 maps, 2 cluebooks and 29 design documents.

Moreover, adjusting for inflation, that $80 in 1994 is equivalent to about $120 now.

[naughty99]

henkez3 wrote...

I just read an article on Gamespot that more or less hits the nail on the head when it comes to DLC. Now, I'm not directing this as jape at BioWare, or really at DLC, as you'll read in the article, DLC is great when it's done right. BioWare IS mentioned, not Dragon Age however, but Mass Effect and I couldn't agree more with Mc shea's opinion on it. I felt seriously left out on some of the story in ME3 because I didn't buy the comics and so on that were associated with the game. The problem isn't the existance of said comics, it's that their plots intertwines with the main game's plot. Again I'm not out to insult BioWare but perhaps they could find something to learn from the article with regards to DA3.

There are also other great points about the article and it largely deals with what Dark Souls did right with its DLC. It's a great read for consumer and developer alike.

http://www.gamespot....ts-you-6399923/

I disagree with the basic premise of this article. When I make a purchase decision about DLC, I don't care at all about respect or disrespect, or what date the developers began working on the DLC. All I care about is whether the DLC is fun to play and whether it is worth the price. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment.

In Mass Effect 2, important plot details were buried in downloadable content. If you were invested in this universe and wanted to know the outcome of the unanswered mysteries that surfaced during the adventure, you needed to shell out extra cash. Just playing through all three games in the series left many holes, so those who cared the most were forced to pay even more money to fill in the many blanks.

Tom McShea is complaining that the ME2 DLC was integrated into the story, while he praises the Dark Souls DLC because it doesn't add crucial story points and because of the date they started working on it.

Mass Effect is a story-driven game. Dark Souls is not. If DLC is well integrated into the story of the base game and expands on the characters, that sounds great to me, something I'd be more interested in buying. All I care about is the end result, is the DLC fun to play and what is the price. I couldn't care less about the date the devs started working on it.

In fact, most of the ME2 DLC was not integrated into the story of the base game and in my opinion not very interesting. Zaeed, Kasumi and all those item pack DLC were not integrated into the story and not interesting for me, not worth buying for $10 because they just provided a few hours of linear mission and one new companion. Project Overlord and Lair of the Shadow Broker were more fun to play and I felt were a better value.

McShea's entire premise that the ideal DLC is one that "expands the original experience without being disrespectful to the audience" is ridiculous in my view. The ideal DLC for me is one that adds new value to the base game, new gameplay features and mechanics that you can use everywhere and add to the replay value, or one that expands on the story arc of the base game. I'd be willing to pay much more for big expansive DLC that achieves these ideals. Otherwise, for the type of DLC that adds a short linear mission that is not integrated with the base game, at most I'd pay a few dollars or just wait for the GOTY edition. I never buy item packs because I have no interest in that type of content.

Modifié par naughty99, 22 novembre 2012 - 08:29 .

[CrazyRah]

naughty99 wrote...

henkez3 wrote...

I just read an article on Gamespot that more or less hits the nail on the head when it comes to DLC. Now, I'm not directing this as jape at BioWare, or really at DLC, as you'll read in the article, DLC is great when it's done right. BioWare IS mentioned, not Dragon Age however, but Mass Effect and I couldn't agree more with Mc shea's opinion on it. I felt seriously left out on some of the story in ME3 because I didn't buy the comics and so on that were associated with the game. The problem isn't the existance of said comics, it's that their plots intertwines with the main game's plot. Again I'm not out to insult BioWare but perhaps they could find something to learn from the article with regards to DA3.

There are also other great points about the article and it largely deals with what Dark Souls did right with its DLC. It's a great read for consumer and developer alike.

http://www.gamespot....ts-you-6399923/

I disagree with the basic premise of this article. When I make a purchase decision about DLC, I don't care at all about respect or disrespect, or what date the developers began working on the DLC. All I care about is whether the DLC is fun to play and whether it is worth the price. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment.

You are absolutely not alone in that sentiment. If a DLC is worth the price and i find the contnet compelling then there's a fairly good chance that i'll buy the DLC. If it fail to meet both of these two requirements then i just won't buy the DLC and look for other stuff instead.
The perfect examples are Dawnguard and Omega DLC. Dawnguard look interesting but the price tag is above for what i can pay for a DLC at this current time. Omega neither look interesting nor look to be worth the price to me. On the other hand there're tons of DLC that's both interesting and worth the price and i'm buying them. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The price of games is too low. For example let's step back to 1994 Ultima VIII has be released with a MSRP of $79.95. What did gamers get for their money: 3 manuals, 2 play guides, 2 reference cards, 4 maps, 2 cluebooks and 29 design documents.

Moreover, adjusting for inflation, that $80 in 1994 is equivalent to about $120 now.

And, instead, $120 is now the discounted price of some of the consoles. And, since the console makers took a hit on pricing consoles so low for the amount of technology they could jam in back from the 360 and the PS3, the next gen consoles will not be such a huge leap forward in terms of graphics and processing power - current estimated specs are what a mid-to-low range gaming PC are right now. Which could keep the technical limitations of future games for PC players artificially low. 

Companies need to be willing to stick their necks out for gaming. Constantly playing it safe, constantly seeking a more casual audience, constantly trying to increase revenues without ever increasing price... these are all signs of a dying or struggling industry, not an industry on the rise. I'm not one of those Doomsday people predicting a second gaming industry crash like what we saw in the 80's, but something about the industry does need to change, as its consumers feel more and more jaded and the casual market is not expanding nearly as fast as into AAA gaming as many had predicted. 

[Eurypterid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The price of games is too low. For example let's step back to 1994 Ultima VIII has be released with a MSRP of $79.95. What did gamers get for their money: 3 manuals, 2 play guides, 2 reference cards, 4 maps, 2 cluebooks and 29 design documents.

Moreover, adjusting for inflation, that $80 in 1994 is equivalent to about $120 now.

Realmz' argument makes no sense to me. How is the price too low when you got all those goodies back then for the game purchase? In order to get all those goodies with your game purchase today, you have to pay... around $120 for the Collector's Edition. For the price of today's games the standard is you get a disc and a 2 page 'manual' telling you how to install the game.

I see no reason for games to cost more, given what you get (or, rather, what you no longer get). And when a large percentage of games are now sold digitally, the cost of reproducing the game itself is zero. Distribution still has a cost attached (bandwidth), but I seriously doubt it's anywhere near the cost of packaging and shipping physical goods, and what would be the retailer's markup/cut on the physical goods goes directly into the devs/pubs' profits.

[Maria Caliban]

Eurypterid wrote...

I see no reason for games to cost more, given what you get (or, rather, what you no longer get).

Games cost more because every console generation, the number of people you need to make the game doubles. As publishers/developers have to pay more to make the game, they need a larger profit. DLCs help with this.

[Fortlowe]

I don't know if that's really the case, Maria. Perhaps for 'event' games like Halo or COD, but I just can't see this being the case for most franchises. Especially in a medium dominated by creatives. Too many chefs in the kitchen and all that.

I can see games costing more because of advertising and publishing and salaries and inflation and due to the cost of development resources, but not purely from manpower. ANY product I need to double my workers to make every year and sell close to the same number of units, is at the very least a doomed product, and more likely a one of a kind.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 22 novembre 2012 - 09:25 .

[Emzamination]

J. Reezy wrote...

franciscoamell wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

franciscoamell wrote...

Awakening is not DLC. It's an expansion which is something I fully support.

The practical differences are insubstantial and entirely based on volume.

You have to download DLC (hence it's name). You can buy a physical copy of Awakening.

*Its*

No. The apostrophe is correct because he is indicating whatever it is possession of the name.

[Il Divo]

naughty99 wrote...

Tom McShea is complaining that the ME2 DLC was integrated into the story, while he praises the Dark Souls DLC because it doesn't add crucial story points and because of the date they started working on it.

Mass Effect is a story-driven game. Dark Souls is not. If DLC is well integrated into the story of the base game and expands on the characters, that sounds great to me, something I'd be more interested in buying. All I care about is the end result, is the DLC fun to play and what is the price. I couldn't care less about the date the devs started working on it.

In fact, most of the ME2 DLC was not integrated into the story of the base game and in my opinion not very interesting. Zaeed, Kasumi and all those item pack DLC were not integrated into the story and not interesting for me, not worth buying for $10 because they just provided a few hours of linear mission and one new companion. Project Overlord and Lair of the Shadow Broker were more fun to play and I felt were a better value.

McShea's entire premise that the ideal DLC is one that "expands the original experience without being disrespectful to the audience" is ridiculous in my view. The ideal DLC for me is one that adds new value to the base game, new gameplay features and mechanics that you can use everywhere and add to the replay value, or one that expands on the story arc of the base game. I'd be willing to pay much more for big expansive DLC that achieves these ideals. Otherwise, for the type of DLC that adds a short linear mission that is not integrated with the base game, at most I'd pay a few dollars or just wait for the GOTY edition. I never buy item packs because I have no interest in that type of content.

There is something to be said for this. Don't get me wrong, I love Dark Souls, as well as Artorias of the Abyss, but dlc content which is most often a day 1 purchase for me is anything that adds to or expands on the story.

Take ME3's Leviathan dlc, which promised to explore deeper into the background of the Reapers. Some people claim that it should have been free, part of the base game, or simply never should have been made. Which is all well and good, except the most interesting content is often that which pushes the story forward. I love dlc like Kasumi, Bringing Down the Sky, etc, but I don't feel the immediate urge to buy them because they are so extraneous to the experience.

[kirvingtwo]

@ Emzamination
"its" is the indication of possessive in this instance. J.Reezy is correct. "It's" is only used to indicate a contraction.


As to the topic of DLC I just want most game developers to do later rereleases that have all content included.  I haven't bought Skyrim yet because I'm waiting for the expansion and dlc cycle to finish and for Bethesda to release a complete edition.  I've given up waiting for EA/BioWare to release complete editions.

Modifié par kirvingtwo, 22 novembre 2012 - 09:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Games cost more because every console generation, the number of people you need to make the game doubles.

I dispute that this team expansion is strictly necessary.

[slimgrin]

I confess to not initially reading the article. After reading, I have this to say: enough of the Dark Souls wankery already. The tenuous connection the author is trying to make between Dark Soul's difficulty and From's approach to DLC is absurd. Along with the DLC, From also released a sh*t PC port. They are nowhere near the devs I listed earlier when it comes to post release support, DLC's, etc.

Modifié par slimgrin, 22 novembre 2012 - 10:04 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Fortlowe wrote...

I don't know if that's really the case, Maria. Perhaps for 'event' games like Halo or COD, but I just can't see this being the case for most franchises. Especially in a medium dominated by creatives. Too many chefs in the kitchen and all that.

I can see games costing more because of advertising and publishing and salaries and inflation and due to the cost of development resources, but not purely from manpower. ANY product I need to double my workers to make every year and sell close to the same number of units, is at the very least a doomed product, and more likely a one of a kind.

You're mistaken. Maria is correct. The issue is that there is a lot more work to be done today than there was a decade ago. When the playstation can't render high res textures, high polygon models, or have to worry about things like dynamic lighting, you don't need things like bump maps, specular maps, etc. These things don't come from nowhere. Somebody has to make them. High resolution textures take more time to create than low resolution ones. High polygon models take more time to create than low polygon ones. Animations with more bones to animate take longer to create than animations with fewer bones. The ability to render blades of grass and individual fingers means that you need people to create blades of grass and individual fingers to be rendered. More people are needed to create content of the fidelity that is expected.

Also, you are mistaken in terms of scale. Maria said the team size doubles each console generation. Not each year. The rough size of a team during the PS1 generation was ~25 people. PS2 era games took around 50 people to make, and the current gen (PS3) takes around 100 developers two years to put out a finished product.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 22 novembre 2012 - 10:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

The ability to render individual blades of grass does not create the need to render individual blades of grass.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Games cost more because every console generation, the number of people you need to make the game doubles.

I dispute that this team expansion is strictly necessary.

I dispute the application of your implied definition of "strictly necessary" to everyone who is not you.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

My problem with DLC is this - I don't use an internet connection with my consoles, so there's a lot of content that's unavailable to me. For most games, I'm not too bothered by it because I know that if I wait a year or so, some kind of ultimate edition will be released that has all of the DLC included on the disc, but BioWare hasn't done this since DAO. In the last three BioWare games I've bought (ME2, DA2, ME3), that means I missed out on a bunch of missions - some with great plot importance, four squadmates, and a somewhat improved ending.

I still hope that there will be a real ultimate edition for the Mass Effect series someday with all of the DLC on disc... but I'm starting to get the feeling that they don't even know there are people who don't have access to DLC. I'd hate to think that they just don't care.

[Roflbox]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
You're mistaken. Maria is correct. 

Are you her groupie? When ever I him post in a thread you always follow or probably an alt account.

[Eurypterid]

Emzamination wrote...


No. The apostrophe is correct because he is indicating whatever it is possession of the name.

Not to derail this too much, but the apostrophe is not correct. He's referring to DLC, 'hence its name'. Refferring to the name DLC itself. Not to possession of anything.

[Maria Caliban]

Roflbox wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
You're mistaken. Maria is correct. 

Are you her groupie? When ever I him post in a thread you always follow or probably an alt account.

I looked at your profile and noticed that you have 0 friends listed. How it works is that each time I post to a thread, it's broadcast to the 'wall' of everyone on my friend's list. They just have to click a link and they're taken to my post.

Yes, I tend to follow her posts and she tends to follow mine. There are a number of other people in our social network that also tend to jump in, but I'm going to guess that they're not as notable because they don't have the same DA II + MLP avatars.

As for agreeing with one another, I got my 'doubles every console year' information from hooryforicecream, so I'm not surprised she thinks I'm right.

Edit: As for being an alt account, I'll point out that we both have copies of DA:O, DA II, ME 2, and ME3 registered. It's unlikely that I spent $240 just to have someone echo my remarks.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 22 novembre 2012 - 11:13 .