638 réponses à ce sujet

[Born In Werl]

i worry because before the main game was released they claimed 60 to 80 hours. ( maybe if you leave the game on while your sleeping ) with the 2 dlcs available at launch at around 50 hrs i was allready out of stuff to do. so what is 15 hours really??? im guessing 5, thats worth 15 maybe 20 bucks. not 40.

[MerinTB]

Sylixe wrote...

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.

Actually inflation has little to do with the price of a computer today since the machine i am running now cost me $1500 built myself.

I didn't actually say computer prices went up or down via inflation - I am more specifically discussing the value of a dollar 20 years ago versus today.  You can easily buy a new computer for like $300, if you want a netbook for example, that has far more processing power than the 286 that was around in 1989-ish, but your typical (PC) computer then was about $1000 and your typical (PC) computer NOW is arguably about $1000.  But that $1000 took longer to earn (minimum wage in 1989 was $3.35 vs. $7.25 in 2009) and it BOUGHT MORE (4000 stamps vs. 2272 stamps, 1000 gallons of gas vs. 380 gallons of gas, 1000 comic books vs. 250 comic books)

Value of a dollar is my point, and has been most of this thread.

Feel free to go buy a piece of crap premade machine and get screwed in the process if you like. 

Thanks for the insult to my intelligence, but I've been building my own computers for myself and for others for over ten years, I know component costs and how cheaper and better it is to build your own if you know what you are doing than buying a prebuilt system from a retail store.

Games certainly have come a long way since those days.  I was refering more to the early 2000's and upward.

You were?  Huh.  Interpret for me the meaning of -

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.

-because, contextually, you seem to be continuing the discussion about games from 20 years ago and prices.  Unless there's some very subtle context I am missing, the way you're responding implies that in the same paragraph in which you respond to a statement about game prices over 20 years, in the sentence following your sentence about the best games for PC's 20 years ago selling for $15-20 max -

(inaccurate, do a google search next time - here's an article listing a couple computer games from 1989 that cost $59.95 - Leisure Suit Larry 3 and Microsoft Flight Simulator 4.0 - http://pqasb.pqarchi...py&pqatl=google and another article with games at $79.95 and $49.95 -  http://pqasb.pqarchi...re&pqatl=google)

you are continuing with the 20 year old game model when bringing up a decline in quality.

But maybe you have really poor composition.  If so you cannot fault me for misunderstanding your confusing writing.

Seriosuly, rebuttals like yours are what get me.

And that's the tu ququoe logical fallacy.

Modifié par MerinTB, 06 janvier 2010 - 12:42 .

[Mikey_205]

Right 40 dollars for 15 hours of gameplay. That comes to 2.67 dollars per hour. I hope the people moaning about the price arent the same ones who were going to pick up Return to Ostagar which is priced at 4 dollars per hour.



This is all stupid however we dont know how much add-in content such as spells and abilities are being added. We dont know the quality of whats being added.



Also the maingame took me 80 hours to complete missing a lot of stuff (2 complete companions) so I think Biowares prediction tend to be fairly honest. I am honestly more worried about the quality of the final battle and story since Bioware have a lot to live up to with how well Dragon Age ended.

[StrangeCat Productions]

I am sure 15 is actually 30 hours.  Mask of the Betrayer was saying it was around 15 hours and I put in about 35 hours to finish it.

[I Valente I]

errr the average game these days is between 10-20 hours...and people pay $60 for those. Shivering Isles was $35....don't quote the Fallout DLC because they were not expansions. Even for this forum, most of the people here are grasping at straws for reasons to bash bioware/ea.

[SeanMurphy2]

I don't see a problem with the price.



It is expensive to distribute a retail expansion to every games store in the world. So I am happy to pay more if it makes an expansion financially feasible.



I remember someone saying that the gaming industry was moving away from boxed expansions. And stores were less willing to stock them.

[xCobalt]

StrangeCat Productions wrote...

I am sure 15 is actually 30 hours.  Mask of the Betrayer was saying it was around 15 hours and I put in about 35 hours to finish it. 

Pretty sure Stone Prisoner and Wardens Keep said "Hours of new content"

I'm sure we all know thats not true.

Modifié par xCobalt, 06 janvier 2010 - 01:03 .

[Naterstein]

Wonder if there are new/continuing VA's... that could cause the expac to cost more. I was a lil shocked, but if the production value is the same or better, I'd say its worth the money, tho hopefully one can save a lil money by using Bioware bucks.

[addiction21]

Born In Werl wrote...

i worry because before the main game was released they claimed 60 to 80 hours. ( maybe if you leave the game on while your sleeping ) with the 2 dlcs available at launch at around 50 hrs i was allready out of stuff to do. so what is 15 hours really??? im guessing 5, thats worth 15 maybe 20 bucks. not 40.

I wonder when people will understand that

1. How much a person plays a games differs from person to person.
2. That "X time played divided by cost" does not equal enjoyment or even come close to including all the factors that go into pricing something.
3. That playing a game like this once is not doing everything since it is a impossibility to do everything in one playthru let alone see all the different ways a event can turn out depending on the different choices you make.
4. Lets all just conviently forget that it also is adding in new companions (I am sure there will need to be voice work done for them and that does not come cheap) spells, specs, from the video at least half a dozen new baddies, abilities and talents, a new origin, ummmm anything else?  And that is prolly the short list. We do not know how many of these new spells, talents, and such are coming. Could be 1 could be a dozen.

Born where did you see a BW person state it was 15 hours?  Or is it just something that you picked up on around the web? See I ask because no one has provided me with this link to the interview or forum thread. So at this point it is just specualtion like most everything else is in this thread. 


Really would you people just rather have bw just release a expansion with nothing but running back and forth, across the largest maps possible, filled with respawning enemies and random battles that takes you 85 hours but does not actualy add anything? Thats what it seems like with most people on this forum.

IT NEEDS TO BE LONGER RAWR. **** ADDING STUFF JUST MAKE IT TAKE MORE TIME CAUSE THE MORE TIME SOMETHING TAKES THE 
BETTER IT IS.

[LadyDrusilla]

The continuation in story is worth $30 to me regardless of length and shiny doodads included. If you disagree that is your decision, but your reasoning is subjective and can not be simplified to "Omg EA is rippings us teh off!!! it shuld b 220 hours for fourteen pence cos in mah day a shillin could buy a ferrari". It may be overpriced to you, but it won't be too people who really want more gameplay.

[LadyDrusilla]

Well, it took me an hour to do Wardens Keep and an hour to do Stone Prisoner the first time, that is two hours. I know people who took longer to do it too.

xCobalt wrote...

StrangeCat Productions wrote...

I am sure 15 is actually 30 hours.  Mask of the Betrayer was saying it was around 15 hours and I put in about 35 hours to finish it. 

Pretty sure Stone Prisoner and Wardens Keep said "Hours of new content"

I'm sure we all know thats not true.

[I Valente I]

xCobalt wrote...

Pretty sure Stone Prisoner and Wardens Keep said "Hours of new content"

I'm sure we all know thats not true.

I disagree. Maybe stop skipping the dialogue, and stop speaking for "us". WE are not you.

[StrangeCat Productions]

xCobalt wrote...

StrangeCat Productions wrote...

I am sure 15 is actually 30 hours.  Mask of the Betrayer was saying it was around 15 hours and I put in about 35 hours to finish it. 

Pretty sure Stone Prisoner and Wardens Keep said "Hours of new content"

I'm sure we all know thats not true.

Maybe some people actually play slowly and take in everything the game has to offer, these people will put 100 hours into DAO.  DAO is what 60 hour game?  But you can put a 100 hours into it?  hmmmm

[MerinTB]

xCobalt wrote...

I'm sure we all know thats not true.

ANSWER KINDA SPOILERRIFFIC -


SPOILER STUFF follows, kinda, in italics -

Warden's Keep, if you count JUST arriving and going through clearing it out AND NOTHING ELSE, it took me 2 hours the first time.
That's not counting talking to Levi in camp, returning to the Keep to buy and store stuff, the random encounter with the meteor, forging the sword, and all the stuff you got to use for the rest of the game like the Warden powers.

Stone Prisoner, there's the merchant who gives you the control rod, the village where you find Shale, the Thaig that Shale leads you to - the three of those combined took me about 6 hours, counting nothing else.
Meaning not counting all the dialog Shale adds to scenes and the camp.  Shale being in your party for the whole game.  All the crystals you find, and the extra items from the two bigger locations.  What she adds especially to the Anvil section.

My apologies for the spoiler-ish stuff, but all the complaints about the DLC being under an hour is very selective in what they count in that time/

AND it uses the stupid hours per dollar as the only measurement of worth.

It's another thing that just gets me irritated.

Modifié par MerinTB, 06 janvier 2010 - 01:21 .

[T0paze]

You know, on the other hand, why keep arguing?

I mean, some people are obviously willing to pay this price. So be it, by all means. Someone even said such inflated prices are there to cover losses caused by pirates. If that's true, who am I to discourage people from intentionally paying EA extra money to cover such losses.

In the end, most people who are interested in this expansion will play it. The only difference is the pirate/paying customer ratio.

Modifié par T0paze, 06 janvier 2010 - 01:36 .

[Phaelducan]

Yeah, it's important to realize that all these benchmarks are per playthrough. I have two main characters that I went for getting everything, 55 and 44 hours respectively, and a junk playthrough getting a rogue to level 20. Including origin stories, re-loads for different endings, and what-not I'm quite certain I'm at 120 hours for the main game.

Even if they list the expansion at 15, I'm pretty confident I can get no less than twice that out of it.

There is a lot more I still want to do as well.


edit: also, I don't think anyone is arguing the value as an actual deterrent or factor for purchasing the expansion... just folks talking about the price point versus the amount of gameplay

Modifié par Phaelducan, 06 janvier 2010 - 01:30 .

[Default137]

xCobalt wrote...

StrangeCat Productions wrote...

I am sure 15 is actually 30 hours.  Mask of the Betrayer was saying it was around 15 hours and I put in about 35 hours to finish it. 

Pretty sure Stone Prisoner and Wardens Keep said "Hours of new content"

I'm sure we all know thats not true.

Once again, theoretically that would be true.

According to my Steam friends list, and talk around the office, most people tend to play games like Dragon Age an average of two times at launch, then another time when a expansion/sequel comes out, then a last time if another sequel/expansion comes out, after that, the next time they will play it would be around one to four years later.

If Wardens and Stone Prisoner are both one hour long things, which seems to be about right for most "average" people, once again, according to my friends list, that means the both of them together got you two hours worth of enjoyment with one playthrough, four hours worth of enjoyment in two playthroughs, six hours on your third, and about eight hours on your fourth, which is actually not bad at all for the price asked.

If we add in all the extra conversations Shale brings, I'd say we could probably add even more enjoyment out of those eight hours then just the total length of them, which makes the already good price even more worth it, if we add in the rich lore Wardens Keep gave, for a person who really enjoys the background of these games, it also becomes well worth it.

With Awakening, lets say it adds fifteen hours base, no? Ok, so lets take our old average person, and use his playthroughs again, he's want to do his first two playthroughs through to the end obviously, meaning he would get at the very least THIRTY hours out of the game, meaning on a PC, you are paying one dollar per hour of enjoyment, not a bad deal at all, especially as it only gets better as time goes on. Then lets say you want to try the other storylines, very few people saved Loghain in the first game, and if he ends up being in the second game, many people will want to see how he ends up acting/being in Awakening, so that would add another fifteen hours to the game, bringing it up to fortyfive hours of gameplay already.

Ok, lets say thats it, it doesn't get any more stuff after that, its still quite a good deal, however, its pretty obvious another game will come after it, meaning shortly after it comes out, the average person will play both games AGAIN just to make sure they remembered the plot, putting its total length at the price at about sixty hours.

Even if I'm wrong, and you only get 40 some hours out of it, its still a good deal, people really need to stop looking at the whole "OH MY, IT TOOK SOMEONE AN HOUR TO BEAT THIS, I WILL HATE IT AND REGRET THE PURCHASE IMMENSLY!", and drop the silliness, if your not going to buy it because you think DLC is the devil, or because you have no cash, fine, but stop pestering Bioware about making good games so quickly, some of us are grateful we don't have to wait another two years to see how things are going.

[evilhouseboat]

$30 for PC is cheap, $40 for PS3 is cheap too.. most games cost 60-70 and a lot are only 15 hour campaigns.



For someone who likes the game, I'd rather spend $40 to keep playing instead of paying for some other game that I might not.

[StrangeCat Productions]

40 dollars is nothing! it would barely cover one night out at a bar. it = to lap dances, it wouldn't give your enough groceries for food, you could maybe buy one shirt with it.

See ya!

[elys]

Born In Werl wrote...

i worry because before the main game was released they claimed 60 to 80 hours. ( maybe if you leave the game on while your sleeping ) with the 2 dlcs available at launch at around 50 hrs i was allready out of stuff to do. so what is 15 hours really??? im guessing 5, thats worth 15 maybe 20 bucks. not 40.

60 to 80 hours is the correct estimation for one character playthru. It's about what I do (and about the same time most of throughfull players do if you read the forums) with each of my character, and without taking time admiring the landscape.
You can do 15 hours if you rush to the main quest ending and skipping optional quests and exploration.
Which is fine, everyone enjoy his own way to play. But you cannot blame the game for lying about its gameplay duration just because you skipped more than half of the existing content.

Modifié par elys, 06 janvier 2010 - 01:45 .

[Mahrdol]

I have bought almost every Bioware product up to this point. I bought all the DLC/Expansions for BG/NWN and ME which I felt was a fine value. I pre ordered DA:O CE DLC and the ME2 CE. Here lies the problem. I felt ripped off by the DA DLC I bought. $5 to $7 for an hour of game play don't cut it for me. The only reason for this turn around in the pricing is the acquisition of Bioware by EA. They have to pay homage to their new masters and EA needs to recoup their investment as quickly as possible. ME2 will probably be a good value as the game was already in development before EA bought Bioware. Anything new they are producing will be suspect and I will not pre-order or buy any EA/Bioware products until I see reviews of them. Maybe my time as a Bioware Fan Boy is at an end. I don't know what the future hold but I am not happy with the Direction the DLC has gone and I choose to vote with my wallet.



Feel free flame away...

[elys]

Mahrdol wrote...
..... I felt ripped off by the DA DLC I bought. $5 to $7 for an hour of game play don't cut it for me. The only reason for this turn around in the pricing is the acquisition of Bioware by EA....

While I'm happy about the vanilla Dragon Age, I feel the same than you about the DLCs (which I purchased too) being too light in content for their price. I just have to be more carefull about purchasing DLC now

I won't express an opinion about  the expansion before it's out, because it would only be speculation. I just hope it is relatively as valuable as the original game, and not following the DLC "style".

Modifié par elys, 06 janvier 2010 - 02:01 .

[devil_foetus]

not exactly good value is it, even compared to the original game.

and s we've seen from the estimated playtimes of the dlcs, 15hrs may turn out to be an exaggeration

[HolyRomanCousinConsort]

Mahrdol wrote...

I have bought almost every Bioware product up to this point. I bought all the DLC/Expansions for BG/NWN and ME which I felt was a fine value. I pre ordered DA:O CE DLC and the ME2 CE. Here lies the problem. I felt ripped off by the DA DLC I bought. $5 to $7 for an hour of game play don't cut it for me. The only reason for this turn around in the pricing is the acquisition of Bioware by EA. They have to pay homage to their new masters and EA needs to recoup their investment as quickly as possible. ME2 will probably be a good value as the game was already in development before EA bought Bioware. Anything new they are producing will be suspect and I will not pre-order or buy any EA/Bioware products until I see reviews of them. Maybe my time as a Bioware Fan Boy is at an end. I don't know what the future hold but I am not happy with the Direction the DLC has gone and I choose to vote with my wallet.

Feel free flame away...

Worry not, for the time is not yet ripe to don that custom Drakeskin suit you ordered at Wade's. I find the Bioware community to be much kinder than say, the Sherdog community.

I concur. EA's acquisition of Bioware certainly changed the direction of the company. I recall Bioware employees saying that DA would be a PC exclusive, and that they had no plans for DLC, only traditional expansion packs. That the game would be surely released by April 2009. Then the game was reportedly delayed in order to have a simultaneous launch on PC and console.

Furthermore, originally, the camp was supposed to have a chest to store equipment. I would not be surprised that the decision to put the chest solely in Warden's Keep was initiated by EA. BUT, as least EA is still giving free reign to the abundant creative talent at Bioware. Let's hope things remain that way.

Modifié par HolyRomanCousinConsort, 06 janvier 2010 - 02:04 .

[Darkest Dreamer]

The price seems relatively reasonable to me.