203 réponses à ce sujet

[BlacJAC74]

AlanC9 wrote...

And what counts as a "legitimate" explanation? One you like?

Anything that doesn't involve someone banging on about the price of petrol, food (pizza and Big Macs included), going to the cinema, dvds, books or whatever other clap-trap people can think up?  How's that for starters?

[p.W]

Fraq Hound wrote...

You watched those crap-tacular endings
and are now surprised that the DLC didn't live up to your expectations
given the price tag.

I'm not gonna say much on this subject because it's likely to get me into trouble.

So
I'll merely say that as a huge Bioware Fan that still feels extremely
slighted by those endings, I haven't, nor will I ever, touch another
piece of Mass Effect content until they fix what they have broken.

I
find it hard to sympathize with those of you who continue to buy their
products and then complain about being disappointed.

This I can respect. I don't personally agree with it - I think that the over-all experience of ME3 was so far above and beyond what other game companies manage that I can afford to cut Bioware more than a little slack, especially in light of the EC - but it's a sensible position to take.

BlacJAC74 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

And what counts as a "legitimate" explanation? One you like?

Anything that doesn't involve someone banging on about the price of petrol, food (pizza and Big Macs included), going to the cinema, dvds, books or whatever other clap-trap people can think up?  How's that for starters?

It's based on making money, as are the prices for almost all goods and services in a market economy. How has this not been established, and how is it not a satisfactory answer? 

Modifié par p.W, 28 novembre 2012 - 07:58 .

[BlacJAC74]

Because food and petrol (can be) are necessities and dlc isn't? Going to the cinema is more often than not a social activity (spending time with family or friends). If we didn't do social things, relationships would break down and so on. Again it's not dlc. Does that establish anything?

[p.W]

BlacJAC74 wrote...

Because food and petrol (can be) are necessities and dlc isn't? Going to the cinema is more often than not a social activity (spending time with family or friends). If we didn't do social things, relationships would break down and so on. Again it's not dlc. Does that establish anything?

Let me try again.

People are asking about the "exorbitant" price of this DLC. The price of this DLC is based on making money, as is most anything in our society. Either the marketing team's strategy will pay off and they will turn a profit, or it will not pay off, and they will lose revenue. That is partially up to us at this point.

What aspect of this answer is unclear and/or unsatisfactory?

edit: I ask because even if you're not really in-the-know about the way Capitalism works, this answer has been floating around this thread since page 1, coming up over and over, and yet some people seem confused. This in turn confuses me. It's almost as if you're not really asking why the DLC is priced as it is, but are simply cleverly masking your moral outrage.

Modifié par p.W, 28 novembre 2012 - 08:09 .

[BlacJAC74]

p.W wrote...

BlacJAC74 wrote...

Because food and petrol (can be) are necessities and dlc isn't? Going to the cinema is more often than not a social activity (spending time with family or friends). If we didn't do social things, relationships would break down and so on. Again it's not dlc. Does that establish anything?

Let me try again.

People are asking about the "exorbitant" price of this DLC. The price of this DLC is based on making money, as is most anything in our society. Either the marketing team's strategy will pay off and they will turn a profit, or it will not pay off, and they will lose revenue. That is partially up to us at this point.

What aspect of this answer is unclear and/or unsatisfactory?

That dlc doesn't have anything to do with food nor helps create and maintain relationships.  What's unclear about that?  It's like comparing a car to a wheel barrow.

[p.W]

BlacJAC74 wrote...

p.W wrote...

BlacJAC74 wrote...

Because food and petrol (can be) are necessities and dlc isn't? Going to the cinema is more often than not a social activity (spending time with family or friends). If we didn't do social things, relationships would break down and so on. Again it's not dlc. Does that establish anything?

Let me try again.

People are asking about the "exorbitant" price of this DLC. The price of this DLC is based on making money, as is most anything in our society. Either the marketing team's strategy will pay off and they will turn a profit, or it will not pay off, and they will lose revenue. That is partially up to us at this point.

What aspect of this answer is unclear and/or unsatisfactory?

That dlc doesn't have anything to do with food nor helps create and maintain relationships.  What's unclear about that?  It's like comparing a car to a wheel barrow.

When in my last two posts did I once mention food or relationships?

You seemed unsatisfied with the answers provided to the question "why does the DLC cost as much as it does?" I provided an answer, in case you missed it the first 20 times it was said in this thread. Are you satisfied?

Still haven't mention food or relationships!

[saintjimmy43]

I will pay another 60 dollars for real ending dlc, bioware. just throwin that out there.

[BlacJAC74]

p.W wrote...

BlacJAC74 wrote...

p.W wrote...

BlacJAC74 wrote...

Because food and petrol (can be) are necessities and dlc isn't? Going to the cinema is more often than not a social activity (spending time with family or friends). If we didn't do social things, relationships would break down and so on. Again it's not dlc. Does that establish anything?

Let me try again.

People are asking about the "exorbitant" price of this DLC. The price of this DLC is based on making money, as is most anything in our society. Either the marketing team's strategy will pay off and they will turn a profit, or it will not pay off, and they will lose revenue. That is partially up to us at this point.

What aspect of this answer is unclear and/or unsatisfactory?

That dlc doesn't have anything to do with food nor helps create and maintain relationships.  What's unclear about that?  It's like comparing a car to a wheel barrow.

When in my last two posts did I once mention food or relationships?

You seemed unsatisfied with the answers provided to the question "why does the DLC cost as much as it does?" I provided an answer, in case you missed it the first 20 times it was said in this thread. Are you satisfied?

Still haven't mention food or relationships!

Because this very thread is full of that nonsense.  Why not compare it to Dawnguard or the upcoming Dragonborn?  I'll hedge my bets on both being considerably larger than 3 hours, yet both retailing for similar prices.  In fact, I've managed 20 hours thus far on Dawnguard and still going strong.  Over 20 comapred to around 4 hours how does that do for your market prices?

Add to that, there's no pressing costs, material costs, shipping costs and no retailer costs other than MS and Sony, yet it costs around 1/4 of the full retail game when it was released.

No doubt I'm the idiot.

Modifié par BlacJAC74, 28 novembre 2012 - 08:25 .

[Jessica Merizan]

I hate that I have to keep harping on this, but please allow others to have their own opinions.

Also, please don't start bandwagon threads. I am totally fine with threads like "I didn't like this, what did you think?" that open a channel for everyone to express themselves but not "I didn't like this, who else realized how stupid this was?" That kind of wording/tone makes it sound like if you disagree, you are wrong or stupid or not a fan etc.

Please keep this in mind, not just for this thread, but for all discussions on BSN.

[AlanC9]

Mad Cass wrote...

Personally I think this is a bad sign. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that between selling at a higher price to fewer customers and selling at a reduced price to more customers (assuming your profit margin is equal for the two), the latter is a more sound business strategy in the long run because it maintains your consumer base. The more people who buy DLC, the longer the lifespan of your game and the better your sales forecast for your next DLC. Upping the pice of a DLC by 50% is something that will lose you customers, so I would imagine the tactic would be better left until late in the DLC cycle when you don't care about possible future returns and there's a higher chance of a profit spike.

I agree with this, but maybe they figure we already are late in the DLC cycle. They were only going to keep it going for a year or so, originally. That leaves space for, what, maybe two more?

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 novembre 2012 - 08:33 .

[AlanC9]

BlacJAC74 wrote...

Because this very thread is full of that nonsense.  Why not compare it to Dawnguard or the upcoming Dragonborn?  I'll hedge my bets on both being considerably larger than 3 hours, yet both retailing for similar prices.  In fact, I've managed 20 hours thus far on Dawnguard and still going strong.  Over 20 comapred to around 4 hours how does that do for your market prices?

Dawnguard's that Skyrim thing, right? Well, how many hours does a Skyrim playthrough take compared to an ME3 playthrough? And yet both games listed at the same price. It's funny how market prices work, isn't it?

Edit: I'm assuming Skyrim's fairly long. I haven't bothered with a TES game since Morrowind, myself.

Add to that, there's no pressing costs, material costs, shipping costs and no retailer costs other than MS and Sony, yet it costs around 1/4 of the full retail game when it was released.

No doubt I'm the idiot.

Maybe; I don't know. You don't seem to be thinking this through too much. Sure, those costs per unit aren't there for a DLC. OTOH, DLCs sell a lot fewer copies than the full games -- last figures I saw showed that half of gamers never buy any DLC at all. Even a DLC that sells well won't sell to that big a percentage of the installed base. Which still probably leaves DLC having a better ROI than the full games, though I've got no way to calculate how much better. And this means.... what?

Are you asserting some sort of moral principle that every product Bio sells has to aim at the same percentage return on invesment? That would have put my old company out of business, since our model was to sell new products at around cost and make all the profits on higher-profitability updates.

Edit: well, not out of business. I figure we could have just priced the main products higher; though some would have surely failed at the higher price, that just means we end up with a smaller company.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 novembre 2012 - 08:52 .

[Redbelle]

Well, here in the UK Omega come's out at £9.99. That's roughly one third of what ME cost when it came out on release day, if you shop around.

From that POV Omega really was overpriced. And worse, it's a vanilla adventure......... say wah?

It's like this. ME3's game framework is a step back in terms of giving the player stuff to do. We no longer hack things, we only collect credits instead of raw materials, and we can't find blueprints to make stuff with our non existent materials cause they've all been taken out. We are now focused, primarily on shooting things. And in a BW game that is not enough. The memory of what ME2 and ME1 allowed us to do. mockingly haunt's us.

This has had a knock on effect to DLC. And what is worse, little to no innovation has come forward from the development team to suggest what could replace all these lost mechanics. Levi had a good CSI idea, but ultimately it's not a foundation of how you play ME3.

Anyway. This DLC has resolved Aria's story that began with why she was sitting on a bench in the Citadel. She's still there now I hear. Sitting there with Omega in her pocket. Not rebuilding her empire in person. Maybe she's thinking of expanding..............

................ or maybe, the problem of how making decisions in ME3 bear's no consequence's that can be defined, other than a number in the EMS score has reared again.

Edit* Oh and if any mod's read this. Can you ask the new studio to pull a comic book style resurrection for Nyreen. We knew her for not long, yet I'd like to know more of her in ME4. Cause Nyreen is ultimately worth more than simply being a handy plot device to make Aria run into Afterlife and start biotic shotting everything in sight.

Modifié par Redbelle, 28 novembre 2012 - 09:07 .

[LinksOcarina]

known_hero wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...


Probably the same as any other product: some kind of profit projection based on production + marketing costs, estimated number of sales, and assumptions of audience buy-in based on previous purchasing behaviour, modified by historical data of similar products, similar release date, and/or similar product type.

So, bioware increased the price of the DLC because they don't think it's going to sell well? How it that fair for the consumer?

Ninja Stan wrote...


It's not a terrible thing to kinda know how economics works. Basic economics concepts was high school social studies for me. The rest was not assuming the worst or buying into knee-jerk internet hyperbole, and having worked in both retail and game development for the last 15 years.

So, you automatically assume I'm just another ignorant rabid fan because I'm not instantly throwing my money at this DLC. Because I want a explanation for the price hike?

Even with all that vast knowledge, you still can't give me a straight answer?

Ninja Stan wrote...

People who think that a company is "just in it for the money now" is both absolutely right and completely wrong. They are wrong because they see the pursuit of profit as a bad thing. Or, at the very least, that pursuit of profit over some nebulous idea of "artistic integrity" (the actual use of the term, not the more recent ME3 meme) is somehow bad or a betrayal of consumer confidence or fandom. They are right because profit is the only pursuit of a company. That's why they're companies in the first place rather than artistic collectives, and even a collective has to pay their rent somehow. You've paid for tons of products from thousands of companies, yet no one ever accuses Colgate of "milking their customers" or Frito-Lay of "just being in it for the money." It's only the creative industries, as if creators can pay their rent with fan adoration and buy food with respect.

Doesn't pertain to me. I never said any of these things.

Ninja Stan wrote...


Note that I am speaking only to the idea of "DLC price tag ridiculousness and basic math." Consumers are, as always, free to buy or not buy any product they wish for whatever reason they wish. 

This seems to be the standard answer to my question. Instead of providing a legitimate explanation for the price increase, Bioware's response is to simply "deal with it". Ok, now I understand.

I'm done here.

Where does he say that they upped the price because they are afraid it won't sell? If thats the case then I really feel bad for Skyrim and it's $20 ripoffs. 

You guys do realize that most games make their money back on DLC now a days, right? In fact, sales of DLC help counter-act the bloated developer costs for most AAA titles without breaking the bank too much. A $15 DLC download 100,000 times results in 1.5 million earned, which I guess would be further divied up to pay for the services that host the DLC. If Omega has that many downloads, thats not only going to recoup the losses making it, but help in recouping potential loss for the main title.

This is why people make DLC, and release extra content. It keeps the gamers invested in their products, and it keeps the developers around longer with both a job and a franchise to work on. this is what makes gaming a service, and what makes the final answer you portray as "deal with it" correct in it's assesment, unhappy with the service, don't buy the product. Simple economics would then have them decrease the value of the DLC to satisfy the lack of demand. Again, thats the simple answer though. 

But that's your answer. The ignorance is honestly demanding one because they don't owe it to the fan's at all, when frankly, its not hard to figure out. If Stan's answer doesn't satisfy in it's vagueness, which is likely done on purpose because A) he doesn't work for BioWare in their offices and likely has no access to their financial sheets, then why even reply? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 28 novembre 2012 - 09:10 .

[BlacJAC74]

AlanC9 wrote...

BlacJAC74 wrote...

Because this very thread is full of that nonsense.  Why not compare it to Dawnguard or the upcoming Dragonborn?  I'll hedge my bets on both being considerably larger than 3 hours, yet both retailing for similar prices.  In fact, I've managed 20 hours thus far on Dawnguard and still going strong.  Over 20 comapred to around 4 hours how does that do for your market prices?

Dawnguard's that Skyrim thing, right? Well, how many hours does a Skyrim playthrough take compared to an ME3 playthrough? And yet both games listed at the same price. It's funny how market prices work, isn't it?

Edit: I'm assuming Skyrim's fairly long. I haven't bothered with a TES game since Morrowind, myself.

Add to that, there's no pressing costs, material costs, shipping costs and no retailer costs other than MS and Sony, yet it costs around 1/4 of the full retail game when it was released.

No doubt I'm the idiot.

Maybe; I don't know. You don't seem to be thinking this through too much. Sure, those costs per unit aren't there for a DLC. OTOH, DLCs sell a lot fewer copies than the full games -- last figures I saw showed that half of gamers never buy any DLC at all. Even a DLC that sells well won't sell to that big a percentage of the installed base. Which still probably leaves DLC having a better ROI than the full games, though I've got no way to calculate how much better. And this means.... what?

Are you asserting some sort of moral principle that every product Bio sells has to aim at the same percentage return on invesment? That would have put my old company out of business, since our model was to sell new products at around cost and make all the profits on higher-profitability updates.

Edit: well, not out of business. I figure we could have just priced the main products higher; though some would have surely failed at the higher price, that just means we end up with a smaller company.

Like myself, you have absolutley no idea what BioWare's business model is, what their profit margins are, yet here you are attempting to rubbish my pov, whilst your own is purely based on how your "old company" operated.  Your old company's buisiness model and that of BioWare's could be complete opposites, so why bother?

You also have no idea what their cut of the dlc profits are, how many uints are likely to be sold etc, so why even bring that into the conversation as a way to counter an arguement?

I too can conjur up theories, it's not difficult, yet it will be meaningless.

Modifié par BlacJAC74, 28 novembre 2012 - 09:15 .

[LinksOcarina]

BlacJAC74 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

BlacJAC74 wrote...

Because this very thread is full of that nonsense.  Why not compare it to Dawnguard or the upcoming Dragonborn?  I'll hedge my bets on both being considerably larger than 3 hours, yet both retailing for similar prices.  In fact, I've managed 20 hours thus far on Dawnguard and still going strong.  Over 20 comapred to around 4 hours how does that do for your market prices?

Dawnguard's that Skyrim thing, right? Well, how many hours does a Skyrim playthrough take compared to an ME3 playthrough? And yet both games listed at the same price. It's funny how market prices work, isn't it?

Edit: I'm assuming Skyrim's fairly long. I haven't bothered with a TES game since Morrowind, myself.

Add to that, there's no pressing costs, material costs, shipping costs and no retailer costs other than MS and Sony, yet it costs around 1/4 of the full retail game when it was released.

No doubt I'm the idiot.

Maybe; I don't know. You don't seem to be thinking this through too much. Sure, those costs per unit aren't there for a DLC. OTOH, DLCs sell a lot fewer copies than the full games -- last figures I saw showed that half of gamers never buy any DLC at all. Even a DLC that sells well won't sell to that big a percentage of the installed base. Which still probably leaves DLC having a better ROI than the full games, though I've got no way to calculate how much better. And this means.... what?

Are you asserting some sort of moral principle that every product Bio sells has to aim at the same percentage return on invesment? That would have put my old company out of business, since our model was to sell new products at around cost and make all the profits on higher-profitability updates.

Edit: well, not out of business. I figure we could have just priced the main products higher; though some would have surely failed at the higher price, that just means we end up with a smaller company.

Like myself, you have absolutley no idea what BioWare's business model is, what their profit margins are, yet here you are attempting to rubbish my pov, whilst your own is purely based on how your "old company" operated.  Your old company's buisiness model and that of BioWare's could be complete opposites, so why bother?

You also have no idea what their cut of the dlc profits are, how many uints are likely to be sold etc, so why even bring that into the conversation as a way to counter an arguement?

I too can conjur up theories, it's not difficult, yet it will be meaningless.

the exact amount is unknown, but their cut of the DLC profits is substantially higher percentage wise than on-shelf, full release games.

Based on old numbers, A $60 game would give developers/publishers roughly $14 back in revenue. The rest goes to ad fees, shelf space fees, shipping and lisencing, and the going gold process. Keep in mind that is data from 2008 I believe.

So if Mass Effect 3 had 2 million units sold (I think thats the current number, if im wrong let me know) the game would be a success, because it would earn the Publishers/Developers around $28 million in returns. Since the average cost of making  a AAA game is anywhere between $20-$40 million, they would either just break even if it cost $20 million to make Mass Effect 3, or  suffer a loss of nearly $12 million. 

For DLC, the point is to of course generate more profit, but also generate content and interest. The prices are set by demand over expectations, and BioWare's model is that of a service, because EA as a whole has been doing that for a while, following the footsteps of Valve. But as I said above, it helps in recouping the losses, if any, that the development of the game had. 

So if a $15 DLC gives BioWare $7 more in revenue per download, the amount of downloads made over time would add up and help pay back potential losses, or increase revenue for future installments. It's high because the consumers don't mind that its high, although in this case it seems they do. Which is why i'm curious to see how many downloads were made of Omega after a month. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 28 novembre 2012 - 09:29 .

[AlanC9]

BlacJAC74 wrote...

Like myself, you have absolutley no idea what BioWare's business model is, what their profit margins are, yet here you are attempting to rubbish my pov, whilst your own is purely based on how your "old company" operated.  Your old company's buisiness model and that of BioWare's could be complete opposites, so why bother?

I'm not trying to rubbish your POV; I don't yet understand it well enough to do that.

You also have no idea what their cut of the dlc profits are, how many uints are likely to be sold etc, so why even bring that into the conversation as a way to counter an arguement?

What argument? So far I've seen mostly an expression of feelings that this is somehow..... unfair? Greedy? Evil? But there's no actual argument except that the DLC costs more than you think it should.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 novembre 2012 - 12:48 .

[saintjimmy43]

The tone here isn't condemning, it's plaintive, read the last paragraph.
Arguments that can transcend math, or perhaps introduce more theorems that explain why time spent on omega IS equal to money spent on omega, are entirely welcome.
We love Mass Effect 3. Which is why it hurts us when bioware does this.

[Barheet1]

I agree with OP. The DLC has to be priced proportional to the cost of the entire game for me to consider it. People keep bringing up Bethesda and I have to agree with that as well. DLC for their games have been top-notch at a fair price. All the DLC for Fallout 3, New Vegas and Skyrim has been some of the best (and longest) I've ever seen. But the DLC put out by Bioware has been mediocre quality at best (except Shadow Broker, that was awesome) and ever since I saw the original ending to ME3, I've been very wary of what I purchase from Bioware. I won't be trusting reviews from "gaming websites" anymore. I only trust them from fans. That's why I've not purchased any DLC for this game.

[TMB903]

It's amazing all of the people who are having buyers remorse about Omega...if you had the slightest doubt about buying it then why did you get it?...for $15(!) no less. I won't be purchasing it because of the price and the overwhelming majority who basically says it sucks.

[Mallissin]

Just finished Omega DLC in about 2 hours 15 minutes and am very disappointed in spending $15 for it.

Not only was it vastly unimpressive, it also did not go into Aria's history at all which was what I thought was promised at some point.

Felt like a big waste of time and money.

[Jononarf]

I'll probably be riddled with "fanboy" remarks, but for you guys who are still complaining about the price, you do know you are paying $15 for a interactive movie with a celebertiy voice actress with lots of dialogue, right? Also, have you of you rageing nerds ever, I mean EVER touch any 3D modeling and animation software? It's not nor will be ever easy to create the amount of cinematics that are in just this DLC. Can you imagine the time it took to make one of these games? So pretty mcuh, what were you expecting for 2 gbs of DLC content from a very cinematic with interarctivity?

if you hate it so much, buy it on an Origin sale or something. ****ing really doesn't get anywhere.

Modifié par Jononarf, 29 novembre 2012 - 03:34 .

[Eterna]

known_hero wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...


Probably the same as any other product: some kind of profit projection based on production + marketing costs, estimated number of sales, and assumptions of audience buy-in based on previous purchasing behaviour, modified by historical data of similar products, similar release date, and/or similar product type.

So, bioware increased the price of the DLC because they don't think it's going to sell well? How it that fair for the consumer?

That can be interpreted in two ways, either it's like you said or they felt it would sell well so they increased the price. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 29 novembre 2012 - 08:33 .

[Cadence of the Planes]

If you don't want to spend money on the DLC, then don't. I want to, so I did. Isn't that remarkably simple?

[TheProtheans]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Where does he say that they upped the price because they are afraid it won't sell? If thats the case then I really feel bad for Skyrim and it's $20 ripoffs. 

A rip off? Skyrim DLC is at least, at least $1 per an hour if you rush it.
I admit it more like .25 - .50 cent per an hour for me

You guys do realize that most games make their money back on DLC now a days, right? In fact, sales of DLC help counter-act the bloated developer costs for most AAA titles without breaking the bank too much. A $15 DLC download 100,000 times results in 1.5 million earned, which I guess would be further divied up to pay for the services that host the DLC. If Omega has that many downloads, thats not only going to recoup the losses making it, but help in recouping potential loss for the main title.

This is why people make DLC, and release extra content. It keeps the gamers invested in their products, and it keeps the developers around longer with both a job and a franchise to work on. this is what makes gaming a service, and what makes the final answer you portray as "deal with it" correct in it's assesment, unhappy with the service, don't buy the product. Simple economics would then have them decrease the value of the DLC to satisfy the lack of demand. Again, thats the simple answer though. 

But that's your answer. The ignorance is honestly demanding one because they don't owe it to the fan's at all, when frankly, its not hard to figure out. If Stan's answer doesn't satisfy in it's vagueness, which is likely done on purpose because A) he doesn't work for BioWare in their offices and likely has no access to their financial sheets, then why even reply? 

I guess I am just confused, they know there is no demand for it.
Just hurry up and put it on permanent sale.

[Scottus4]

Ninja Stan wrote...


People who think that a company is "just in it for the money now" is both absolutely right and completely wrong. They are wrong because they see the pursuit of profit as a bad thing.

If people are saying Bioware is in it for the money, and Bioware is in it for the money, they're not wrong, they're right. Their view of greed has nothing to do with such a statement of fact. You're already off to a bad start there.

Being profitable isn't a bad thing, but pursuing greater short term profits at the expense of everything else... that is a bad thing. A very bad thing.