611 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

what about the people that like the armor packs and other vanity pieces?

Skipping all that other stuff and sticking to microtransactions-

I guess for those folks they must like the fact that Bioware releases their armor and weapon packs piecemeal and have a ton of little DLC items pre-release to collect or pick up later.

Me personally? I'd rather the Skyrim approach of "no pre-release DLCs" & "weapon and armor packs being included in large DLC expansions instead of piecemeal" model be adopted by Bioware.

Makes it feel less like nickel and diming, even if that's not whats happening with the piecemeal DLC model.

[Fawx9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

That's my big problem with DLC.

Full game = $50 (on PC)
Contains ~50 hours of content (not to mention all the core game systems)

Content/Cost ratio = 1$/hour


DLC = $10
Contains ~4 hours of content

Content/Cost ratio = $2.50/hour


AS SOON AS DLC is actually priced FAIRLY in relation to the main game, I will be more than happy to purchase it.

This is fine, and if that's your measure of value then absolutely go for it.

I don't personally use hours, and as such I'd rather pay $20 for Portal 2 and play it for 17 or so hours, than $50 on Skyrim and persumably play it for hundreds of hours. (since it's 17 hours of OMGBBQ).  But it's still me placing a level of expectation on value on what I'd get from Skyrim, and it hasn't reached an acceptable price for me yet.

For some, DLC is fine and they have no issues with it.

I do think that part of the problem that some people have is that with people that have no qualms with the DLC model, or even embrace it, those that don't like it will ultimately feel like they are left behind.

I honestly have no idea if you'd know this, but I'll try asking anyways.

Why is it that a distribution, not requiring any fees outside of BW use, does not decrease in price?

If you look at ME2 during a steam sale its the price of 1/2 DLC. Hell
buying all the story DLC for ME2 costs the same as the deluxe edition on
Origin. That doesn't even count the extra packs for armor/weapons.

Call me cheap, but I don't feel that its fair that a publisher basically never depreciates the value of  a product simply because its "cheap" already. Continuing with the above ME example, the trilogy is over. How exactly aren't the DLC falling in value, or at least put on sale, for all platoforms.  Xbox at least gets mandatory discounts as seen during Thanksgiving sales through XboxLive points and Leviathen got a direct discount yet Bioware points or the PC packs never seem to have that happen.

Modifié par Fawx9, 11 février 2013 - 03:33 .

[Quyk Sylvyr]

I've never been upset about Day 1 DLC's (especially the way Bioware has handled them). DA2 included the DLC for free if you ordered the game in advance. I always saw the DLC as a free reward to the fans who were excited enough to pre-order the game in advance. However, people will always complain if something is unavailable, so Bioware included another way to get Sebastian.

In general, I think DLC's are great for the game. They provide additional revenue when the game itself no longer retails for very much. I personally pick and choose the DLC's I end up buying, and I only purchase them when the game is good enough to replay.

[Malanek]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Furthermore, what about the people that like the armor packs and other vanity pieces?

I don't mind DLC and am actually quite happy you guys make some additional money out of it, after all that keeps games getting made and the end price down. I am concerned about game balance though (so am not talking about purely vanity pieces). DAO and DA2 have a plethora of items available in all these Mage packs, Rogue Packs etc along with many other pre-order bonus items etc. The game is significantly less challenging when you are using those. How do you actually balance the level of challenge when you don't know what items the player has access to? Does QA test it with and without all the bonuses?

Having just played Dead Space 3, I started with an absolutely amazing weapon that seemed to trivialise the first 5 or so chapters and I was still using it (you can modify it) at the end of the game. I don't know what is in all the microtransaction packs you can buy but I shudder to think about how easier it will make the game if this stuff is better.

Modifié par Malanek999, 11 février 2013 - 04:21 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I know Allan used the royal "you" on this, but, given that it was my quote he pulled, I thought I'd give my two cents.

A mostly snipped quote:

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So, as a gamer, here's what you do. If you think we're being unethical: don't buy our games. Yes, this means you won't get to play a game that you probably really want to play. But if you continuously go out and buy a luxury good that you don't feel is worth the money, the only person you can effectively blame is yourself. Change and adapt. Only buy games when they are much cheaper (there's nothing forcing you, aside from your own desires, to play the game at release). If you don't think DLCs are worth it, don't buy them. Yes, this means that you won't get to play content that you may *want* to play, but if you feel that the entire DLC practice is unethical, you owe it to yourself to not buy it. You're compromising your own morals and convictions by doing so.


<snip>

So I ask: if you dislike it so much, why do you keep purchasing it? If you think that games are otherwise incomplete without said content, why do you keep purchasing the games? Lastly, how do we reconcile this perspective with those that feel that value is just fine, and do feel that the games are still complete without DLCs?

I know no one cares or wants to know about my own personal purchasing habits, but, again, if I ignore Allan's mention of the royal You, it seems worth it for me to outline.

As suggested above, I do not by DLCs. I never have. In fact, I have not downloaded the free DLCs that came with my copies of DA2, ME2 and DA:O. My reasons for that are both moral and practical. I am a console player on the 360 and I don't have a wireless adapter for it (and don't plan on spending money on it, they aren't rock bottom cheap). Similarly, while I could transport my XBox directly to my modem, hook it up using a spare TV, and download the free DLC (my one time DLC download was the EC for ME3), I don't believe participating in them at all is right for me to do, given that I am completely against the concept. 

Similarly, I have not bought a new game since DA2. I joined Gamefly (which isn't exactly the same as waiting for prices to drop, mind you, but it does avoid me giving my money directly to any one developer) and have come out ahead in HUGE ways on my savings. I spend $120 on games a year (the cost of two regular titles) and play roughly nine or ten games a year, from start to completion. If I had waited for the games to drop to $15 a pop, a phenomenon which can take over a year (see Skyrim, in Allan's own post), I still would have spent more and would not have been able to play the games immediately upon release. I'm not trying to sound like a sales ad for Gamefly, but its honestly one of the best deals out there for your money, so I do try and give it love whenever I get a chance.

I don't have the adapter, so it goes without saying that the only time i participate in MP is when friends come over, for whatever that's worth.

Lastly, the only money above and beyond my Gamefly subscription I contribute to the gaming world is for Kickstarter projects, which I feel are not part of the regular publishing machine and which focuses on exact gameplay elements and pricing models I agree to.


Ironically enough, I never used to have these moral objections to things in the industry. I thought people who bought DLC were silly, but I didn't think they were inherently greedy or wrong. I didn't mind buying new games at release, because I usually had a good idea of what I was buying (DA2 was my first and only pre-order). And I never bought into the more gimmicky things, like Collector's Edition (again, DA2 was a first for me there as well). So, if I hadn't been taken in, hook, line and sinker on DA2, I wouldn't feel this jaded about gaming. Thankfully, since that has happened, I have completely changed my buying habits to reflect this new outlook. So in that respect, I suppose I should thank Bioware for how I felt about DA2.

I've done my best to remove my finanical support for things I disagree with and vote with my dollar. Problem is? Instead of the industry hearing me and saying "maybe these aren't good ideas" they, instead, crusade against those who do this. Have a rented copy of a game? Well, if next gen console rumors are true, developers are looking awfully hard at preventing you from playing a game that doesn't have the original product code. Don't like Microtransactions? Too late, they're starting to show up in AAA Single Player games like Dead Space 3 - and if you find and exploit a glitch in your own single player game you paid money for, you could theoretically be taken to court now. Don't want to download any DLC? With "always online" next gen consoles or PCs, the quests like Stone's Prisoner in DA:O, where a location on your map and a conversation marker can pop up that will say "to play this quest, buy this DLC! Just a click away!" Not to mention how the Always Online function can easily ride way out of control, with tying into things like Social Media, MP, ad placement, etc. that can wind up affecting and influencing the SP game, requiring me to Tweet my LI romance scene or grind away in a forty minute death match just to explore all of a game's different endings.

While I don't want to make it look like I'm laying all (or even most) of the blame on the feet of Bioware (or even EA), it still doesn't seem right that when I'm voting with my dollar, I am (or at least the gamers who share my purchasing habits) targeted with the same draconian practices that companies chase after hackers with. I'm voting with every dollar I spend, but instead of listening, the industry want to make it their way or the highway. And if it comes down to it, I'm going the highway - or at least sticking around to see how Kickstarter turns out. As is, that looks to be my future source of gaming if some of the worst next gen rumors can be believed.

[Quyk Sylvyr]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


I've done my best to remove my finanical support for things I disagree with and vote with my dollar. Problem is? Instead of the industry hearing me and saying "maybe these aren't good ideas" they, instead, crusade against those who do this. Have a rented copy of a game? Well, if next gen console rumors are true, developers are looking awfully hard at preventing you from playing a game that doesn't have the original product code. Don't like Microtransactions? Too late, they're starting to show up in AAA Single Player games like Dead Space 3 - and if you find and exploit a glitch in your own single player game you paid money for, you could theoretically be taken to court now. Don't want to download any DLC? With "always online" next gen consoles or PCs, the quests like Stone's Prisoner in DA:O, where a location on your map and a conversation marker can pop up that will say "to play this quest, buy this DLC! Just a click away!" Not to mention how the Always Online function can easily ride way out of control, with tying into things like Social Media, MP, ad placement, etc. that can wind up affecting and influencing the SP game, requiring me to Tweet my LI romance scene or grind away in a forty minute death match just to explore all of a game's different endings.

At the end of the day gaming companies are there to make money.  DLC's stay because there are enough people out there that think they're worthwhile.  While companies may be making it easier to buy DLCs (and who can blame them for letting players know they're available), I can guarantee you that a player will always have to click "yes" they want to buy the DLC.   Can you play the game without the DLCs? 

[Allan Schumacher]

I've done my best to remove my finanical support for things I disagree with and vote with my dollar. Problem is? Instead of the industry hearing me and saying "maybe these aren't good ideas" they, instead, crusade against those who do this. Have a rented copy of a game? Well, if next gen console rumors are true, developers are looking awfully hard at preventing you from playing a game that doesn't have the original product code. Don't like Microtransactions? Too late, they're starting to show up in AAA Single Player games like Dead Space 3 - and if you find and exploit a glitch in your own single player game you paid money for, you could theoretically be taken to court now. Don't want to download any DLC? With "always online" next gen consoles or PCs, the quests like Stone's Prisoner in DA:O, where a location on your map and a conversation marker can pop up that will say "to play this quest, buy this DLC! Just a click away!" Not to mention how the Always Online function can easily ride way out of control, with tying into things like Social Media, MP, ad placement, etc. that can wind up affecting and influencing the SP game, requiring me to Tweet my LI romance scene or grind away in a forty minute death match just to explore all of a game's different endings.

While I don't want to make it look like I'm laying all (or even most) of the blame on the feet of Bioware (or even EA), it still doesn't seem right that when I'm voting with my dollar, I am (or at least the gamers who share my purchasing habits) targeted with the same draconian practices that companies chase after hackers with. I'm voting with every dollar I spend, but instead of listening, the industry want to make it their way or the highway. And if it comes down to it, I'm going the highway - or at least sticking around to see how Kickstarter turns out. As is, that looks to be my future source of gaming if some of the worst next gen rumors can be believed.

Is it that the industry "isn't listening" to your vote, or there are a lot of other votes out there that don't fall in line with the way you'd like to vote?

"Abstaining" your vote is a valid play here, and if you don't like the decisions that are being made and feel they leave you feeling taken advantage of and exploited, then yes you should stop paying the money.

If there's enough, revenues will get hit and companies will have to respond to that.

I don't think the companies are "crusading" against you. They just, at least for now, aren't going in the direction that you feel is the one for you. If you're not buying the games, that's still making an impact. It's just that it's not only you making the votes. Maybe it's just that not enough votes have come in yet to make it obvious that "these aren't very good ideas."


It's still useful to come in and communicate your reasons, but in my own experiences I rarely find myself outraged at a purchase that I make.  Things like digital distribution allow greater price flexibility and there's an interesting new angle with crowd sourcing.

At the very least, if there's enough Fast Jimmy's out there, someone's going to see a business opportunity and try to make games that you'll want to buy.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 11 février 2013 - 05:50 .

[XX-Pyro]

I don't agree with Fast Jimmy regarding (specifically) microtransactions, but I wholeheartedly agree with his last post. Always online? Microtransactions for BONUS content? Social media tied to games? It's definitely going the wrong way.

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

I love EA's failed logic with microtransactions. Microtransactions attracting phone gamers is as dumb as saying phone games with dlc will attract a console gamer.

And I hope someone tries to ban used games. Even with mere rumors the outcry is massive. Wait until any confirmation to really see it. Lack of console sales=lack of games sold. Every business analyst has said such a move will be suicide.

Microtransactions are something, too, I do not tolerate. I pay $60...I expect full content.

[Fortlowe]

I've spent hundreds on DLC. I'll continue to pay for additional content. I'd rather not, but I really do consider gaming my primary hobby and hobbies, for the most part cost time and money. Truly, I do long for the days when games were released whole, and make no mistake, all 'additional' content is still part of a whole singular product, but business currently requires that this product, videogames, be distributed in a manner much like automobiles. You can get the base model or the convertible with the spinning rims, or any configuration in between and at your discretion.

As a consumer, I, of course, would like to spend as little as possible, and get as much out of the deal as I can. As a business person I want to spend as little as possible and make as much as I can. Premium pricing for sought after options is a reasonable means of securing additional profit along an established revenue stream. If I want something more than the standard, and wish to experience said sought after options, I must be willing to pay that premium.

It's not an ideal situation, and one must do due diligence prior to making a purchase like with any other product, but I find it difficult to take a stance of no participation, especially considering the voluntary nature of using the product. I like games. Spending more on a game I like, to me, is not vastly different than buying the game to begin with. Would I have liked whatever additional portion of the game I purchased to have come in the box and be available from the time I press start? Hell yeah I would. But that's just not like to happen. So instead of ignoring DLC altogether, I try to limit my purchased to those I find worthwhile.

The Borderlands 2 season pass? Yup. The Assassin's Creed III season pass? Nope. Awakenings, for DAO? Yup. The feast day gifts? Nope. And so on and so on. I'm not making my purchases or declining them as a statement. The statement is self evident. I'll buy the extras if I think they are worth the purchase. I understand that these extras represent an additional investment by the provider. But if its fluff (weapons, armor, power ups, outfits, etc.) designed specifically to squeeze a few extra a few extra bucks out of me, I'll probably just ignore it. And if the game is made in such a way that it is only satisfying by making purchases of said fluff (many MMO's according to what I've read), then it's just not the product for me.

[JWvonGoethe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Here is where you, the consumer, are now able to make an informed decision: If you did not feel that you are getting full value for your dollar, feel free to wait and purchase it at a dollar point that you feel IS worth your dollar.  Which may mean you just don't buy the product.

It is very difficult for even the most intelligent consumer to make an informed decision when purchasing DLC - the price is often the only thing you can use when it comes to estimating the amount/quality of content you'll be getting. But the price is not in fact a reliable indicator of the kind of content you'll get. Further, the price itself is then veiled by the whole Microsoft Points thing, which serves to prevent people thinking about how much real money they are spending. Companies generally go out of their way to make sure consumers don't make informed decisions.

If you think that the lack of refunds in gaming (as a PC gamer for decades, I haven't been able to return opened PC games for pretty much the entirety of my actually being able to buy games) is unethical, then exercise your consumer right and don't purchase video games.

It's not like we're being nefarious here. You're not stupid, and you can clearly see "Huh, I can't get my money back for this" so it's not like you're being blindsided by something that has caught you by surprise. For a luxury good that is completely unnecessary for you to both live life, and live it comfortably.

[Edit: sorry if I come across as a bit angry in this next bit, it's not directed at you personally Allan.]

Consumers have a right to get a full refund if the product they purchase clearly does not match the advertised description (the Limits on Use description when purchasing DLC over Xbox Live often makes false claims.) Microsoft's 'no refund' policy on DLC violates this right.

Despite what games companies and retailers might say, every consumer is legally entitled to a refund under certain circumstances. Trying to mislead people when it comes to the law and their rights is not great business practice.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 11 février 2013 - 11:52 .

[Dean_the_Young]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

Consumers have a right to get a full refund if the product they purchase clearly does not match the advertised description (the Limits on Use description when purchasing DLC over Xbox Live often makes false claims.) Microsoft's 'no refund' policy on DLC violates this right.

Despite what games companies and retailers might say, every consumer is legally entitled to a refund under certain circumstances. Trying to mislead people when it comes to the law and their rights is not great business practice.

Out of curiosity, since we have been talking about Bioware DLC, what Bioware DLC do you believe is not matching the advertising description or otherwise needs to be refundable?

[Wulfram]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Purely speculative on my part, but (especially given the reputation EA has as being moneygrubbing) I wouldn't be surprised if the financial viability of Ultimate Editions isn't really there. If it was, wouldn't EA go out and print the money?

My speculation would be that they've heard too many people saying they'll wait for the GotY/Ultimate edition.  They're probably worth doing if they attract new people, or get people to buy the game twice, but if they're leaching sales off of the initial release then they start to look like a bad idea.

Modifié par Wulfram, 11 février 2013 - 11:18 .

[JWvonGoethe]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...

Consumers have a right to get a full refund if the product they purchase clearly does not match the advertised description (the Limits on Use description when purchasing DLC over Xbox Live often makes false claims.) Microsoft's 'no refund' policy on DLC violates this right.

Despite what games companies and retailers might say, every consumer is legally entitled to a refund under certain circumstances. Trying to mislead people when it comes to the law and their rights is not great business practice.

Out of curiosity, since we have been talking about Bioware DLC, what Bioware DLC do you believe is not matching the advertising description or otherwise needs to be refundable?

I didn't want to go into details since I thought that would be using the thread to further a personal agenda, but, well, since you asked...

When purchasing DLC over Xbox Live, the 'Limits on Use' agreement (also called 'Usage Restictions') states "You can use this item on the first Xbox you downloaded it to. Access to this item will also be granted to all users on this first console." You can check this easily if you have Xbox Live when purchasing just about any piece of DLC.

Except, with Origins games, such as Mass Effect 2, access to the content is only granted to user profiles that happen to share the same EA account information as the profile that was originally used to downloaded the content. In other words, access to the content is not granted to all users, so the terms and conditions make a false claim.

So I bought some ME2 DLC using one user profile, since I had points on it. With most games, in line with the Terms of Use, I would be able to play that content an another profile (ie the one that has my ME2 saves on it), but I can't because of Origin.

It's theoretically possible, though practically infeasible, to change the EA account that a user profile is associated with. If you succeed in doing so, you are liable to lose all or some of your purchased content and save data. Regardless, access to the content is not granted to all users. And as for getting a refund, well, that goes against Microsoft policy, and EA customer service is appalling.

[JWvonGoethe]

.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 11 février 2013 - 11:50 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I have a friend who calls me "cheap" because I wait for newly released games to drop in price. He says I'm hurting the industry and such.

Allan, in your opinion, do you think people who wait for price drops on new games are hurting developers?

[Dean_the_Young]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...

Consumers have a right to get a full refund if the product they purchase clearly does not match the advertised description (the Limits on Use description when purchasing DLC over Xbox Live often makes false claims.) Microsoft's 'no refund' policy on DLC violates this right.

Despite what games companies and retailers might say, every consumer is legally entitled to a refund under certain circumstances. Trying to mislead people when it comes to the law and their rights is not great business practice.

Out of curiosity, since we have been talking about Bioware DLC, what Bioware DLC do you believe is not matching the advertising description or otherwise needs to be refundable?

I didn't want to go into details since I thought that would be using the thread to further a personal agenda, but, well, since you asked...

When purchasing DLC over Xbox Live, the 'Limits on Use' agreement (also called 'Usage Restictions') states "You can use this item on the first Xbox you downloaded it to. Access to this item will also be granted to all users on this first console." You can check this easily if you have Xbox Live when purchasing just about any piece of DLC.

Except, with Origins games, such as Mass Effect 2, access to the content is only granted to user profiles that happen to share the same EA account information as the profile that was originally used to downloaded the content. In other words, access to the content is not granted to all users, so the terms and conditions make a false claim.

So I bought some ME2 DLC using one user profile, since I had points on it. With most games, in line with the Terms of Use, I would be able to play that content an another profile (ie the one that has my ME2 saves on it), but I can't because of Origin.

It's theoretically possible, though practically infeasible, to change the EA account that a user profile is associated with. If you succeed in doing so, you are liable to lose all or some of your purchased content and save data. Regardless, access to the content is not granted to all users. And as for getting a refund, well, that goes against Microsoft policy, and EA customer service is appalling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Origins the PC service? IE, the XBOX limits of use would apply to the XBOX DLC, and not the PC?

I'm not seeing where your claim of needing a refund is supported. Annoyance that DLC puchases don't shift between accounts, sure, and that it doesn't shift between systems (XBOX vs. PC), but unless part of the advertising was 'you buying this DLC allows you to use it on all systems and all accounts you own', that doesn't sound like false advertising by any standard.

You're citing the terms of use contract, not advertising, and it's not even clear if you're citing the right contract to support your claim.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 11 février 2013 - 01:03 .

[ghost_ronin]

Dlcs like in the past are ok, gear packs for trivial amounts are ok, buying sovereigns, over-priced gear or cheats are a big nono.

[Fast Jimmy]

XX-Pyro wrote...

I don't agree with Fast Jimmy regarding (specifically) microtransactions, but I wholeheartedly agree with his last post. Always online? Microtransactions for BONUS content? Social media tied to games? It's definitely going the wrong way.

One last thing here... in regards to voting with your dollar, it can be difficult to do this as well. For DS3, microtransactions exist in the SP, yet EA says that they aren't required to best the game. Yet what does that mean? The Dragon Age games don't require companions or potions to beat them... but that doesn't mean it's not painfully harder to do so. We were told Mass Effect 3 didn't require MP or the mobile phone app to get the best endings... well, unless you consider a scenario where your hero lives (even in be most dubious of ways) as an ending, instead of an Easter Egg. Diablo 3 has always online DRM, but it won't affect your SP playthrough... except for all the server crashes for a SP GAME.

If there was a way to better understand how these somewhat dubious features affect gameplay, one might feel okay with trying to navigate the mine field of business-slanted features. But may game reviews skim over these concepts, giving no insight. Every early review for Diablo 3 made no real mention of the server issues... mostly because the reviews came from advance copies, where there was no activity on the servers but them (see IGN's review, for example). If reviews cannot be counted on to analyze features that hamper gameplay, it is hard to make an informed decision. And I doubt that any game developer/publisher would mention any potential flaws in their game as it was released, unless they wanted to lose their jobs.

To summarize: it's difficult to make informed decisions about games. Voting with your dollar is a hard thing to do these days, with so many newer ways for game companies to try and squeeze out an extra few pennies in revenue that it is hard to know which games to even support... and that's not even taking into consideration if the game is GOOD or not.

[JWvonGoethe]

Dean_The_Young wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Origins the PC service? IE, the XBOX limits of use would apply to the XBOX DLC, and not the PC?

Nothing to do with PC, this is solely an Xbox issue. I don't use my PC for gaming. Sorry if talking about Origins was misleading. It's possible that EA accounts and Origins accounts are not technically the same thing, so I'll talk about EA accounts from now on. (More confusingly, you also associate your Xbox profile with a Microsoft account when you initially sign up to Xbox Live, but just forget about MS accounts, they are irrelevant here.)

In order to purchase ME2 DLC on Xbox, you need to associate each Xbox profile with an EA account (you can have multiple profiles on a single Xbox, similar to user accounts on a PC.) You are supposed to be able to play purchased DLC on each profile, but with certain EA games, this is impossible, which appears to violate the Limits on Use agreement.

I'm not seeing where your claim of needing a refund is supported. Annoyance that DLC puchases don't shift between accounts, sure, and that it doesn't shift between systems (XBOX vs. PC), but unless part of the advertising was 'you buying this DLC allows you to use it on all systems and all accounts you own', that doesn't soundlike false advertising by any standard.

Shifting between different gaming platforms/systems isn't the issue here. I'm just talking about playing DLC on single Xbox. Basically, goods were not as described in the purchasing agreement, which means they were mis-sold and, unless I'm missing something, means I (and potentially thousands of other people) should be entitled to a refund.

The gist of the claim made when buying DLC is 'You can play this on all Xbox user accounts on the first Xbox you downloaded it to,' which isn't true. Nothing to do with PCs or multiple Xboxes.

You're citing the terms of use contract, not advertising, and it's not even clear if you're citing the right contract to support your claim.

Yes, it's not really about advertising, sorry about conflating the issue there. The limits on use contract comes up when purchasing any DLC over Xbox Live, immediately prior to confirming the purchase. It is the only such contract that appears. Not entirely sure if it is legally a contract, but I don't see why it would matter - it still seems to make false claims about what you can do with the DLC.

Modern Warfare 3 had a similar issue with DLC being locked to a single Xbox user profile, and they had to amend it with an update so that all user profiles on each single Xbox could access it. The same Limits on Use agreement that I've cited was what forced Activision to apply this update. Anyway, currently pursuing this through official channels, so we'll see what happens.

[nightscrawl]

Fortlowe wrote...

I've spent hundreds on DLC. I'll continue to pay for additional content. I'd rather not, but I really do consider gaming my primary hobby and hobbies, for the most part cost time and money. Truly, I do long for the days when games were released whole, and make no mistake, all 'additional' content is still part of a whole singular product, but business currently requires that this product, videogames, be distributed in a manner much like automobiles. You can get the base model or the convertible with the spinning rims, or any configuration in between and at your discretion.

As a consumer, I, of course, would like to spend as little as possible, and get as much out of the deal as I can. As a business person I want to spend as little as possible and make as much as I can. Premium pricing for sought after options is a reasonable means of securing additional profit along an established revenue stream. If I want something more than the standard, and wish to experience said sought after options, I must be willing to pay that premium.

It's not an ideal situation, and one must do due diligence prior to making a purchase like with any other product, but I find it difficult to take a stance of no participation, especially considering the voluntary nature of using the product. I like games. Spending more on a game I like, to me, is not vastly different than buying the game to begin with. Would I have liked whatever additional portion of the game I purchased to have come in the box and be available from the time I press start? Hell yeah I would. But that's just not like to happen. So instead of ignoring DLC altogether, I try to limit my purchased to those I find worthwhile.

The Borderlands 2 season pass? Yup. The Assassin's Creed III season pass? Nope. Awakenings, for DAO? Yup. The feast day gifts? Nope. And so on and so on. I'm not making my purchases or declining them as a statement. The statement is self evident. I'll buy the extras if I think they are worth the purchase. I understand that these extras represent an additional investment by the provider. But if its fluff (weapons, armor, power ups, outfits, etc.) designed specifically to squeeze a few extra a few extra bucks out of me, I'll probably just ignore it. And if the game is made in such a way that it is only satisfying by making purchases of said fluff (many MMO's according to what I've read), then it's just not the product for me.

I agree with everything you wrote here, and my purchasing habits mirror your own as well. For DAO I bought the story DLC that my Warden participated in and skipped out on Leliana's Song, Darkspawn Chronicles, and the Feast Day Gifts/Pranks. I will continue to purchase with discretion based on the merits of the individual DLC.

To play devil's advocate for a moment: if DAO had come with Stone Prisoner, Return to Ostagar, Warden's Keep, Witch Hunt, and Golems of Amgarrak and was priced at $80 would you have still purchased it? Perhaps you would. However, I don't know if such a price point would be pleasing to the average consumer.

But I have a feeling that one of the reasons DLC is packaged this way is to avoid sticker shock for the consumer. Games have been in the same price range for several years now, and consumers expect to pay that much for a game. If you continue to price games at an amount the consumer expects and then sell additional content that equals or exceeds the value the game would be with such content included, the company comes out ahead because they have essentially manipulated the consumer into spending more money than the initial value of the game, even if the consumer would not have paid that amount in a single purchase.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 11 février 2013 - 03:27 .

[Wulfram]

EntropicAngel wrote...

It seems like quite a bit of this could be rectified by simply waiting a week or so and seeing what people are saying.

Though of course the publisher doesn't want you doing that, and gives you various incentives to not do that.

Modifié par Wulfram, 11 février 2013 - 03:31 .

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

I don't agree with Fast Jimmy regarding (specifically) microtransactions, but I wholeheartedly agree with his last post. Always online? Microtransactions for BONUS content? Social media tied to games? It's definitely going the wrong way.

One last thing here... in regards to voting with your dollar, it can be difficult to do this as well. For DS3, microtransactions exist in the SP, yet EA says that they aren't required to best the game. Yet what does that mean? The Dragon Age games don't require companions or potions to beat them... but that doesn't mean it's not painfully harder to do so. We were told Mass Effect 3 didn't require MP or the mobile phone app to get the best endings... well, unless you consider a scenario where your hero lives (even in be most dubious of ways) as an ending, instead of an Easter Egg. Diablo 3 has always online DRM, but it won't affect your SP playthrough... except for all the server crashes for a SP GAME.

If there was a way to better understand how these somewhat dubious features affect gameplay, one might feel okay with trying to navigate the mine field of business-slanted features. But may game reviews skim over these concepts, giving no insight. Every early review for Diablo 3 made no real mention of the server issues... mostly because the reviews came from advance copies, where there was no activity on the servers but them (see IGN's review, for example). If reviews cannot be counted on to analyze features that hamper gameplay, it is hard to make an informed decision. And I doubt that any game developer/publisher would mention any potential flaws in their game as it was released, unless they wanted to lose their jobs.

To summarize: it's difficult to make informed decisions about games. Voting with your dollar is a hard thing to do these days, with so many newer ways for game companies to try and squeeze out an extra few pennies in revenue that it is hard to know which games to even support... and that's not even taking into consideration if the game is GOOD or not.

I have heard from a lot of PC players I know that the server issues for Diablo III were epected during the initial launch, but they didn't expect it to be consistant. The point of contention is the fact that Blizzard hasn't fixed the problem fully or adequately, over the issues being there, it seems. 

The comparison between Dead Space 3 is also a false analogy, because almost everyone ive spoken to said the store on the game is unecessary, and doesn't detract from the difficulty. In fact, the microtransactions in-game are basically the easy way out to not make the game difficult, without destroying the game mechanics.

Basically, its not pay-to-win, which is a huge difference between other games out there.