638 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMadCat]

JabberJaww wrote...





So its ok to just assume $40 is a fair price without any actual facts involving the pricing?

I dont think so.

Yet you assumed it's ok for them to charge $20 despite not knowing any of the facts involved in the development budget or the pricing. So it's ok to assume they should charge lower without knowing any facts, but not ok to assume they set the price where they felt that would make enough to recoup the costs of development, production, and advertising? Remember, Bioware/EA aren't making $40 per copy sold.

BioWare is releasing, ME2, going strong DA, The Old Republic with a monthly fee... i am sure they could have afforded to charge $20-$25 for an expansion... EA and BioWare are 2 of the most succesful game companies. They could give us a break for crying out loud

Exactly what does the Mass Effect team and The Old Republic team have to do with the Dragon Age team and it's budget and plans? It's not the job of Mass Effects team to cover the slack of Dragon Age's team, they're treated as seperate entities within the company. And one of the reasons both are so successfull is because they don't "Give us breaks" simply because WE, the unedecuated consumers, don't like the price.

Humans always want more for less.

[bjdbwea]

Gabochido wrote...

While for many, the value of an expansion like this is just the "15 extra hours", keep in mind that the actual cost of creating it goes way beyond that. Many of the new features in the expansion can likely affect the rest of the game so that means making sure new things interact with old things, and you know by now that there are a lot of old things. It means a lot of testing and a lot of code re-writing and content modifications.

Then maybe the better way to go would've been to start a new campaign with the add-on, like in NWN 1 - and by the way those add-ons, I might add, took longer than 15 hours to complete.

[SuperBaggles1]

Ishbo wrote...

GvazElite wrote...

Not really, with an MMO you first pay for the cd key (about the price of a game), then they'll give you like a free month ($15) and $15 a month after that.

You already paid for their game, now you're just paying for the service of accessing (which is marked up a bit from what it actually costs so they make a profit)

Er I was talking about MMOs.

Anyway I think the main two grievances people have atm are that:

a) The price is quite high, especially compared to DA:O and other 'full' games
It's not a huge expansion compared to other expansions

And I really wish people would stop using films and nights out to compare prices, they're completely different.

15 hours of new quests and such plus all the other stuff they are adding in like the new origin seems on par with most other expansions I've seen, if not a little heftier than most expansions.

[fanman72]

Gabochido wrote...

HolyRomanCousinConsort wrote...
The main DA game required several times more code, money and effort than this expansion did.  Yet it was a very popular product that undoubtedly netted EA a tidy profit. The sales from the main game made up for 5 years' worth of engine development, testing, art, writing and music.

I'm not sure where you got such trustworthy data indicating that EA has made a profit from the sales of DA and that it has made up for the 5 years of develepment and content creation so that you can state it in such a way, but I'm afraid that I don't personally have authority or enough knowledge to confirm or deny your statement.

However, I can tell you something about game development. Not all games are expected to recover the money spent on them based on revenues of the game alone. Many intelectual properties (IPs) have a long term plan that includes additional content, expansions, sequels and other products and often the revenues from the sale value is distributed among these products in ways that are not exactly proportional to their individual development costs. This is done to suit the market and the demand for these products. Sometimes a product that is expensive to produce and has little demand is made just to support an IP in certain markets and make sure the IP has a broader audience, gaining more market and therefore more revenue in the long run.

So don't be surprised if some products seem to have greater value than others as this is often a necessary strategy to keep game development sustainable.

I figured this would be the case.  Considering the cost of development for games, I'm not surprised most don't even turn a profit nowadays.  10 years ago you didn't have to pay for full blown voice actors.  Businesses sometimes make money in areas you don't expect  


It was like this at the last company I worked for.  Many of our products did not turn a profit, and only existed to capture market share and get them interested in our profitable products.  Of course our senior management instead decided it's easier to send our engineering jobs overseas to maintain a decent margin.....but that's for another topic and that's my bitterness talking<_<

[JPWriting]

Well, I dunno. Depends on the quality of the content in the expansion. If it is good, adds more characters with professional voice acting, new stuff, new story.... I would say the price tag is justified.



Now, 15 hours does seem a little bit on the slim side... but the play time is also 'subjective'... some people mow through it and some people take their time. If 15 hours is the expected, likely I will see upwards of 20-25 or more because I generally take my time. That would be satisfactory enough for me if the quality were up to par.



All in all, I think condemning the expansion and the associated costs before even being able to judge it on it's actual merit is ... imprudent.

[Obliterati]

Ishbo wrote...

Anyway I think the main two grievances people have atm are that:

a) The price is quite high, especially compared to DA:O and other 'full' games
It's not a huge expansion compared to other expansions

And I really wish people would stop using films and nights out to compare prices, they're completely different.

This is exactly right.

Awakenings should not be compared to movies or coffee or cars or space shuttles or whatever, but to similar products.

Many other modern game expansions - like those of, say, Fallout 3, or GTA4, or Oblivion - are less expensive and/or provide more content. 

The "development cost" argument doesn't hold water. Neither does the "it's worth 6.4 lattes from Starbucks" argument.

[Romothecus]

Gabochido wrote...

HolyRomanCousinConsort wrote...
The main DA game required several times more code, money and effort than this expansion did.  Yet it was a very popular product that undoubtedly netted EA a tidy profit. The sales from the main game made up for 5 years' worth of engine development, testing, art, writing and music.

I'm not sure where you got such trustworthy data indicating that EA has made a profit from the sales of DA and that it has made up for the 5 years of develepment and content creation so that you can state it in such a way, but I'm afraid that I don't personally have authority or enough knowledge to confirm or deny your statement.

EA is a publicly traded company. All that data is public knowledge and has to be filed with the SEC on a quarterly basis. Don't pretend it's some kind of super-secret info that we could never know.

The fact is that $40 for 15 hours of content is ludicrous. The ratio of content hours:dollars spent is wildly off from the base game.

[fanman72]

Obliterati wrote...

Ishbo wrote...

Anyway I think the main two grievances people have atm are that:

a) The price is quite high, especially compared to DA:O and other 'full' games
It's not a huge expansion compared to other expansions

And I really wish people would stop using films and nights out to compare prices, they're completely different.

This is exactly right.

Awakenings should not be compared to movies or coffee or cars or space shuttles or whatever, but to similar products.

Many other modern game expansions - like those of, say, Fallout 3, or GTA4, or Oblivion - are less expensive and/or provide more content. 

The "development cost" argument doesn't hold water. Neither does the "it's worth 6.4 lattes from Starbucks" argument.

If the quality is as good as the original campaign I'm not complaining.  Only 2 out of the 5 DLCs for Fallout 3 could be considered the same standard as its original campaign

[Ethical Scabs]

Romothecus wrote...

Gabochido wrote...

HolyRomanCousinConsort wrote...
The main DA game required several times more code, money and effort than this expansion did.  Yet it was a very popular product that undoubtedly netted EA a tidy profit. The sales from the main game made up for 5 years' worth of engine development, testing, art, writing and music.

I'm not sure where you got such trustworthy data indicating that EA has made a profit from the sales of DA and that it has made up for the 5 years of develepment and content creation so that you can state it in such a way, but I'm afraid that I don't personally have authority or enough knowledge to confirm or deny your statement.

EA is a publicly traded company. All that data is public knowledge and has to be filed with the SEC on a quarterly basis. Don't pretend it's some kind of super-secret info that we could never know.

The fact is that $40 for 15 hours of content is ludicrous. The ratio of content hours:dollars spent is wildly off from the base game.

Isn't that about what Throne of Bhaal cost at first?

How about Diablo II : LoD?

There's a standard established,  (un)fortunately.

Modifié par Ethical Scabs, 05 janvier 2010 - 07:10 .

[Obliterati]

fanman72 wrote...

Obliterati wrote...

Ishbo wrote...

Anyway I think the main two grievances people have atm are that:

a) The price is quite high, especially compared to DA:O and other 'full' games
It's not a huge expansion compared to other expansions

And I really wish people would stop using films and nights out to compare prices, they're completely different.

This is exactly right.

Awakenings should not be compared to movies or coffee or cars or space shuttles or whatever, but to similar products.

Many other modern game expansions - like those of, say, Fallout 3, or GTA4, or Oblivion - are less expensive and/or provide more content. 

The "development cost" argument doesn't hold water. Neither does the "it's worth 6.4 lattes from Starbucks" argument.

If the quality is as good as the original campaign I'm not complaining.  Only 2 out of the 5 DLCs for Fallout 3 could be considered the same standard as its original campaign

I agree completely, but I would point out that they only cost 10 bucks apiece.

[MerinTB]

Sylixe wrote...

Rolenka wrote...

Game prices haven't gone up in what, 20 years?

Forget inflation, what do you think production costs have done in that time?

They have gone up along with the price of the games.  The best games for a PC 20 years ago sold for at max $15-20.  Unfortunately the quality of the games has dropped dramatically thanks to people demanding better graphics over better game play.  I cannot honestly bring myself to buying this till it's selling for $4.99 on steam.  DAO is a solid game but it's not the kind of game that makes me HAVE to go out and buy addons immediately.

Quality of games has not gone up since 1989?  Honestly?

Hey, I love Knights of Legend, Pool of Radiance and Wasteland - and I'm sure Ultima V, Wizardry III, and The Magic Candle were fine games for their time - but seriously?  The quality has dropped?

Ignoring the fact that, honestly, for almost all gamers the improved graphics and sound of games since 1989 or so are ACTUALLY big improvements in gaming, how do you think you can justify such a statement?

As for prices, computers cost about $1000 or more in 1989 - but you know, gas was like $1 and stamps were 25 cents, so $25 for a computer game is like, what, $60-100 via inflation?  Computer games were programmed by basically one guy - some games had a couple guys, this was just changing in the late 80's early 90's but Knights of Legend was almost exclusively one programmer, Todd Porter.  Here's a guy talking about development costs for computer games at the time - http://www.erasmataz...dern_Times.html - where you can see the average cost of a year of computer game development was $90,000 in 1989.

Seriously, it is statements like these that are so flawed that really get me.

[TheMadCat]

Obliterati wrote...

fanman72 wrote...

Obliterati wrote...

Ishbo wrote...

Anyway I think the main two grievances people have atm are that:

a) The price is quite high, especially compared to DA:O and other 'full' games
It's not a huge expansion compared to other expansions

And I really wish people would stop using films and nights out to compare prices, they're completely different.

This is exactly right.

Awakenings should not be compared to movies or coffee or cars or space shuttles or whatever, but to similar products.

Many other modern game expansions - like those of, say, Fallout 3, or GTA4, or Oblivion - are less expensive and/or provide more content. 

The "development cost" argument doesn't hold water. Neither does the "it's worth 6.4 lattes from Starbucks" argument.

If the quality is as good as the original campaign I'm not complaining.  Only 2 out of the 5 DLCs for Fallout 3 could be considered the same standard as its original campaign

I agree completely, but I would point out that they only cost 10 bucks apiece.

And give you about an hour or 3 worth of content, aside from Broken Steel and Point Lookout, which were the only two I personally felt was worth it.

[Dragoon001]

15 hours of game for a RPG addon sounds to short for me too, especially in comparison to previous Bioware addons for Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 (Tales of the Sword Coast and Throne of Bhaal) and the expansions for Neverwinter Nights 1.
The ratio between price and playtime is already pretty bad for Download Contented and now regular expansions are affected too.
Well, Bioware is now EA, but EA is not Bioware.

Modifié par Dragoon001, 05 janvier 2010 - 07:29 .

[Ishbo]

Tassiaw wrote...

Ishbo wrote...
And I really wish people would stop using films and nights out to compare prices, they're completely different.

It's a valid comparison, they're entertainment. People enjoy employing the x amount of dollars = y amount of hours of entertainment formula, comparing a game to a movie is no worse.

It is a wrong comparison since the games have always been cheaper than going out to the films. It doesn't matter whether the price of going to the cinema is justified or not, it is always very high. Just because going to the cinema costs this much doesn't justify the price of games, which is why a statement like:

It's worth what people are willing to pay. For me, who loved DA:O, I
have no problems paying $40. Hell when you look at how much a 2 hour
movie costs these days, $40 for 15 hours is a good deal.

is ridiculous IMO. Another form of entertainment could be sailing a yacht. Say that costs $100 for a day trip, does that mean it's OK for a 10-hour game to cost $100?

[JabberJaww]

TheMadCat wrote...

JabberJaww wrote...





So its ok to just assume $40 is a fair price without any actual facts involving the pricing?

I dont think so.

Yet you assumed it's ok for them to charge $20 despite not knowing any of the facts involved in the development budget or the pricing. So it's ok to assume they should charge lower without knowing any facts, but not ok to assume they set the price where they felt that would make enough to recoup the costs of development, production, and advertising? Remember, Bioware/EA aren't making $40 per copy sold.

BioWare is releasing, ME2, going strong DA, The Old Republic with a monthly fee... i am sure they could have afforded to charge $20-$25 for an expansion... EA and BioWare are 2 of the most succesful game companies. They could give us a break for crying out loud

Exactly what does the Mass Effect team and The Old Republic team have to do with the Dragon Age team and it's budget and plans? It's not the job of Mass Effects team to cover the slack of Dragon Age's team, they're treated as seperate entities within the company. And one of the reasons both are so successfull is because they don't "Give us breaks" simply because WE, the unedecuated consumers, don't like the price.

Humans always want more for less.

So no matter the product, you blindly accept the price?

You never want to get a better deal??

So it is not ok for me to make the assumption that charging $20-$25 for an expansion, over 3 different platforms.. remember, and this being the only expansion.. along with the occasional $5-$7 for DLC (which i pay, dont really mind) for however long this game goes.. EA will not make a profit?

My opinion is they will make a profit. EA has there name stamped on ME2, Old Republic, DA.. tons of other titles out there too.

I will buy the expansion on the first day.. but that doesnt mean as a responsible consumer i wont question the charge.. and if i cant afford it at the time, i wont buy it.

[MerinTB]

Obliterati wrote...

Ishbo wrote...

Anyway I think the main two grievances people have atm are that:

a) The price is quite high, especially compared to DA:O and other 'full' games
It's not a huge expansion compared to other expansions

And I really wish people would stop using films and nights out to compare prices, they're completely different.

This is exactly right.

Awakenings should not be compared to movies or coffee or cars or space shuttles or whatever, but to similar products.

Many other modern game expansions - like those of, say, Fallout 3, or GTA4, or Oblivion - are less expensive and/or provide more content. 

The "development cost" argument doesn't hold water. Neither does the "it's worth 6.4 lattes from Starbucks" argument.

Huh.  I thought the discussion was almost exclusively what an hours worth of entertainment was worth.

Dollars are dollars, so a dollar spent on two hours of movie is the same dollar spent on two hours of gameplay, is it not?

The problem you are having is you are trying to quantify the value of an HOUR OF GAMING between games, when others are qualifying the value of spending a dollar on an hour of gaming.

I think your distinction is meaningless.  The only true comparision some of you could argue is if you had two Bioware expansions being release fo DAO with the same amount of content, same amount of voice acting, same amount of development costs, same number of hours of playtime - and they charged different prices for the two.

Otherwise, even comparing Awakening to Warden's Keep or Throne of Bhaal is an exercise in futility.

The only argument that matters when it comes to price is what value people put on a dollar for entertainment.  And in that sense movies, games, books, comics, concert tickets, etc, are all valid comparisions for the value of a dollar's worth of entertainment.

[Ishbo]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylixe wrote...

Rolenka wrote...

Game prices haven't gone up in what, 20 years?

Forget inflation, what do you think production costs have done in that time?

They have gone up along with the price of the games.  The best games for a PC 20 years ago sold for at max $15-20.  Unfortunately the quality of the games has dropped dramatically thanks to people demanding better graphics over better game play.  I cannot honestly bring myself to buying this till it's selling for $4.99 on steam.  DAO is a solid game but it's not the kind of game that makes me HAVE to go out and buy addons immediately.

Quality of games has not gone up since 1989?  Honestly?

Hey, I love Knights of Legend, Pool of Radiance and Wasteland - and I'm sure Ultima V, Wizardry III, and The Magic Candle were fine games for their time - but seriously?  The quality has dropped?

Ignoring the fact that, honestly, for almost all gamers the improved graphics and sound of games since 1989 or so are ACTUALLY big improvements in gaming, how do you think you can justify such a statement?

As for prices, computers cost about $1000 or more in 1989 - but you know, gas was like $1 and stamps were 25 cents, so $25 for a computer game is like, what, $60-100 via inflation?  Computer games were programmed by basically one guy - some games had a couple guys, this was just changing in the late 80's early 90's but Knights of Legend was almost exclusively one programmer, Todd Porter.  Here's a guy talking about development costs for computer games at the time - http://www.erasmataz...dern_Times.html - where you can see the average cost of a year of computer game development was $90,000 in 1989.

Seriously, it is statements like these that are so flawed that really get me.

Also games these days are increasingly like huge Hollywood blockbusters.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for example cost $200 million (including marketing)- I don't care about inflation; I'm pretty sure games like Ultima cost nowhere near this sum. I also doubt giant games like Dragon Age created by giant companies like Bioware cost much less than these kind of numbers.

So 'The best games for a PC 20 years ago sold for at max $15-20.' is invalid since there is a reason for increased prices. You can say that the number of gamers today have increased so there is more revenue, but that's not how it works, is it?

[JBurke]

For the quality that BioWare has given me, even on these tiny little DLCs, it's worth it. 30 USD for the PC version is hardly expensive. Really though, I wonder how many of you complaining about prices are upset because you are going to have to struggle to convince your parents to fork over the money.

Those of us in the big bad world don't seem to be complaining about the price too much as we've seen how expensive even smaller things than DLC and or this expansion are. Not meaning to insult people, just from my experiences the "price is too high" people tend to be young and inexperienced in how the world really functions.

Modifié par JBurke, 05 janvier 2010 - 07:33 .

[Obliterati]

Ishbo wrote...

Tassiaw wrote...

Ishbo wrote...
And I really wish people would stop using films and nights out to compare prices, they're completely different.

It's a valid comparison, they're entertainment. People enjoy employing the x amount of dollars = y amount of hours of entertainment formula, comparing a game to a movie is no worse.

It is a wrong comparison since the games have always been cheaper than going out to the films. It doesn't matter whether the price of going to the cinema is justified or not, it is always very high. Just because going to the cinema costs this much doesn't justify the price of games, which is why a statement like:

It's worth what people are willing to pay. For me, who loved DA:O, I
have no problems paying $40. Hell when you look at how much a 2 hour
movie costs these days, $40 for 15 hours is a good deal.

is ridiculous IMO. Another form of entertainment could be sailing a yacht. Say that costs $100 for a day trip, does that mean it's OK for a 10-hour game to cost $100?

Guy Laliberté spent $35 million for a 10 day trip to the International Space Station last year...so clearly, 15 hours of gameplay are worth 2.2 million dollars.

[Liquid Wolf]

How much was Modern Warfare 2 and how much time did people spend playing through the main campaign?

[Aanorith]

How can 15 hours be bad? There are plenty presumably "good" games out there with 6-8 hours. 15 hours is more then enough for me and I find it a reasonable price.

[Ishbo]

JBurke wrote...

For the quality that BioWare has given me, even on these tiny little DLCs, it's worth it. 30 USD for the PC version is hardly expensive. Really though, I wonder how many of you complaining about prices are upset because you are going to have to struggle to convince your parents to fork over the money.

Those of us in the big bad world don't seem to be complaining about the price too much as we've seen how expensive even smaller things than DLC and or this expansion are. Not meaning to insult people, just from my experiences the "price is too high" people tend to be young and inexperienced in how the world really functions.

Why use the condescending 'all the whiners must be kids' tone?

Whether someone can afford an item is irrelevant here - would you buy a coffee for $20? It could be an absolutely fantastic coffee, the drink of your life, and it's hardly 'expensive', but you would question its price, surely?

It's a forum, it's meant to be a place where people voice their opinions. You think $40 is a fair price, fair enough. Other people don't.

$40 is not a high price, it's not like anyone here can't afford that. It's simply that some people think that it's not worth that price.