72 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr Bawbag]

Viglin wrote...

Dr Bawbag wrote...



All that aside, there's no getting away from the fact that digital DLC is a cash cow for devs and publishers alike. No shipping costs are involved, no pressing costs, no retailer getting a wedge of the profit (maybe that's debatable as I'm not sure what the microsoft/sony v retailer cost are) and no packaging costs. Yet all this considered, digital DLC is still massively more expensive than buying DLC packs on the high street.

You forgot to list the bonues's to the customer as well;
-No shipping and handling costs
-No waiting days, even weeks...unless your willing to pay more for quicker delievery
-No having to worry if it even gets delievered to you
-No having to go to the store[which can include travel exspense], traffic, bad weather, hoping the store has it, dealing with lines and salespeople, etc etc

To me, it seems a win win for both sides...and in the end, its 100% upto the customer if they wish to pay.

All you need to add to that list is a breathing ventolator to do your breathing for you and you'll be sorted. Another thing about digital DLC is you don't actually own anything and it suddenly becomes worthless if you decide to stop using a PC or a certain console or decide never to play the game again.  Hard copies have sell on value digital material has no value.

Maybe I'm showing my age here, but i was always under the impression owning a hard copy whether it be a game, CD or DVD is always going to have more benifits for  various  reasons.

[Finiffa]

Dr Bawbag wrote...

... it's all subjective and to make my point clearer, it's not about whether you enjoyed a certain DLC or not, it's about the amount of content contained within the given DLC.

Of course it is also about whether you enjoyed a certain DLC, after all quality >> quantity. Why should I care about a huge DLC thats totally boring?

You keep saying that the amount of content if Stone Prisoner isn't enough, well that is just as subjective, I say it IS enough because it persists througout the entire game.

Then again I bought the game firsthand so I got it for free anyways .

[F-C]

no you arnt missing anything. the DLC is ridiculously overpriced. they are targetting the people who have more money than sense and will buy anything for any price just because they want it.



sadly it seems we live in the age of stupidity so they are going to be quite successful targetting that section of the audience. all you can do is just not buy it and move on to another game.

[Dr Bawbag]

Finiffa wrote...

Dr Bawbag wrote...

... it's all subjective and to make my point clearer, it's not about whether you enjoyed a certain DLC or not, it's about the amount of content contained within the given DLC.

Of course it is also about whether you enjoyed a certain DLC, after all quality >> quantity. Why should I care about a huge DLC thats totally boring?

You keep saying that the amount of content if Stone Prisoner isn't enough, well that is just as subjective, I say it IS enough because it persists througout the entire game.

Then again I bought the game firsthand so I got it for free anyways .

It really isn't about whether a group of individuals enjoyed a certain DLC over another, as coming to a DA:O forum is obviously going to give a scewed account on which DLC is better value for money, so why would i even ask on these forums which DLC is better?  There's always only going to be one winner. Go to a dev forum and there will be individuals that would argue the toss over whether or not **** on a stick was value for money if a certain dev happened to offer it to people.

Would you have had no qualms if Bioware priced the upcomming expansion at $60?  Some people are happy to pay regardless of what's offered to them.  Had the DLC not been included in the game proper and i had decided to purchase it, then i can safely say I'd be a little bit pissed.  Bioware or not.

[Will Shred]

I don't even see why there's a debate on this, it's obvious why 'The Stone Prisoner' is priced the way it is (for the reasons already stated by others). Personally I'm more annoyed at Bioware for 'Warden's Keep', specifically for charging money for an item storage locker that was intended to have been included in the base game but got cut for bugginess. That's something that should have been released as part of the 1.02 patch, *not* as a premium DLC.



While DLC has been around for years, keep in mind that we're still really in the pioneer days as far as DLC as a business model goes. Companies like Bioware are still trying to figure out the balance of profitability vs. value. Sometimes they'll get it right, but other times they'll make mistakes. And the mistakes are sometimes advantageous to the consumer (ME1 'Bring Down the Sky'), which people tend to overlook.

[kalniel]

Dr Bawbag wrote...

The experts at Bioware? Just because a manufacturer puts a price on a product doesn't mean it's value for money, or have i taken what you wrote out of context? If so, I apologise.

It means they think there's enough of the market interested in buying it at that price to make it worth while selling. And experts.. yes - they have professionals who are experts at market research and have been doing it for many years.

Funny you should mention OP anchorage as it's a fairer comparison. Both DLC are very linear, same amount of time taken to complete each story and so forth - and therein lies my point - one is priced at 800pts and the other at 1200 pts. this is assuming both DLCs aren't roadrunnered and played in the spirit in which they were indented to be played.

I completely disagree - OP anchorage is a quick blast, while The Stone Prisoner keeps giving new things throughout the 70+ hours it took me to play the original campaign, it should be worth far more.

All that aside, there's no getting away from the fact that digital DLC is a cash cow for devs and publishers alike. No shipping costs are involved, no pressing costs, no retailer getting a wedge of the profit (maybe that's debatable as I'm not sure what the microsoft/sony v retailer cost are) and no packaging costs. Yet all this considered, digital DLC is still massively more expensive than buying DLC packs on the high street.

And as yet I've still not seen anyone forced into buying it if they didn't think it was worth their money. This is a free market and products have never been priced purely on bill of materials, why should DLC be any different?

Modifié par kalniel, 09 janvier 2010 - 06:37 .

[Finiffa]

Dr Bawbag wrote...

Would you have had no qualms if Bioware priced the upcomming expansion at $60?  Some people are happy to pay regardless of what's offered to them.  Had the DLC not been included in the game proper and i had decided to purchase it, then i can safely say I'd be a little bit pissed.  Bioware or not.

It is not priced at $60 so thats not something I need to take in account.  I don't just "pay regardless of what is offered", I can make informed descisions myself, thanks for your concern.

Apart from that the DLC WAS included in the game proper, and as has already been said, its more expensive for 2nd hand buyer BECAUSE Bioware gets nothing else from 2nd hand buyers......it is their only way to make some money from that market.

[VanDraegon]

Hrmmm, where have i seen this topic before? I am having a deja vu moment. It should come back to me soon....

[hazelrock]

Torias,

I do not fully understand why that video game consumers, as we all are, are looked down upon for buying used games. Before retail outlets started offering the ability to buy used games we were all borrowing or trading games with friends and it did not force the industry to fold. I for one, have never owned a new car and there is no demonizing of those that buy used cars the way that it is in the video game market. I feel that corporations have just become too greedy, due in no small part to the over-compensation of executives. If the game companies do not agree with the second hand market then why do they not only support it by selling their new games through the same retail stores that give the option of buying new or used, but by also giving incentives to buy new from the same store? Why not make the incentives be offered through outlets that do not offer used games? I feel that the sales figures are not skewed as far as they think them to be becauase the used games were once sold to the original owner as a new game. In the "old days" there were used games being sold by way of local newspapers and such, the only difference now is that the makers of the games can get an idea about how many have changed hands because of earnings published by these second hand retailers. I would liken it to Ford looking at the earnings of their competitors and being envious of their sales numbers and wanting it for themselves. I bought DA:O new, mainly because of the Stone Prisoner download, but as a stand alone $15 is a little much given the scope of the entire game that was $60. I really do question the scruples of most game makers as it seems to me that things that used to be included in games as unlockable rewards are now being sold seperately to allow the executives of these corporations to afford steak dinners every night of the week and a second home in some exotic location. That is just my opinion not trying to argue. What do you think?

[Kevin Lynch]

I believe the power is all in the consumers' hands. A free market allows a business to set whatever price they want, but they are only going to do so in a manner that they predict will give them the best return. As you raise prices, demand falls. The key is to not charge so much that they begin to lose customers/sales but enough so that they maximize their profit (Bio/EA is a business, remember).



So, if you want more for your money, or you want to pay less for a product, you have to do the only thing you can: not become a consumer of that product until it matches what you'll offer in return. Not only does the business lose your money (the sale), they haven't hooked you into some form of customer loyalty (which they count on for baseline return on their future investments).



I think EA/BioWare is making a business decision that may or may not work out in the end. I may not understand it (I'm no economics expert), but I'm sure someone in the company does. They all have to make money to survive, and they've done so well enough in the past.



It's just my opinion as a consumer. As soon as gamers start acting like they have some power, they'll find that they really do. Most people complain and then go ahead and show they approve of the product/price by getting it anyway. All I can say is a little backbone can go a long way.

[hazelrock]

I am in total agreement Mr. Lynch. Consumers have alot more power than they currently exercise.

[ShockwavePulsaris]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

I believe the power is all in the consumers' hands. A free market allows a business to set whatever price they want, but they are only going to do so in a manner that they predict will give them the best return. As you raise prices, demand falls. The key is to not charge so much that they begin to lose customers/sales but enough so that they maximize their profit (Bio/EA is a business, remember).

So, if you want more for your money, or you want to pay less for a product, you have to do the only thing you can: not become a consumer of that product until it matches what you'll offer in return. Not only does the business lose your money (the sale), they haven't hooked you into some form of customer loyalty (which they count on for baseline return on their future investments).

I think EA/BioWare is making a business decision that may or may not work out in the end. I may not understand it (I'm no economics expert), but I'm sure someone in the company does. They all have to make money to survive, and they've done so well enough in the past.

It's just my opinion as a consumer. As soon as gamers start acting like they have some power, they'll find that they really do. Most people complain and then go ahead and show they approve of the product/price by getting it anyway. All I can say is a little backbone can go a long way.

You're correct, but to put it more simply, the key to all of this lies within responsibility.  The company cannot be at fault for your investment decisions if you allow them to spiral to the point that they have.  The reason our economy (American) has come to the fissure that it has is because the overwhelming irresponsibility of the spender who will not watch how quickly or how wisely he/she invests their money.  In the 'old days', yes, you would buy a game and fully expect it to be a complete package.  The advent of digital technology has opened a lot of new windows to watch this practice fall to the wayside.

However, though every consumer is responsible to themselves, it is also the responsibility of the provider to not abuse a system that can be easily abused.  It's basic human decency.  Any executive at BioWare (or any other company for that matter) can justify this reasoning in any method that they like, but the end result is always the same.  If you, as a company, provide more value for a lower tradeoff, then you will find that you'll have more dedicated gamers who will be more satisfied with a product that is provided.  Shortselling gamers, as Lynch said, encourages behaviours that have lead to the global econonomy becoming what it currently is.  It isn't fair and it isn't right.

Again, responsibility.  It is the only answer that matters regardless of whatever truth you care to apply it to.

[Uzaik]

Yes, you are clearly missing something. In fact, seeing as it has been explained over and over and over again in this thread... it's probably not the only thing you are missing.

[addiction21]

F-C wrote...

no you arnt missing anything. the DLC is ridiculously overpriced. they are targetting the people who have more money than sense and will buy anything for any price just because they want it.

sadly it seems we live in the age of stupidity so they are going to be quite successful targetting that section of the audience. all you can do is just not buy it and move on to another game.

No matte how many times you repeat someting it wont make it true. Best of luck tho.

[squid5580]

Dr Bawbag wrote...

Because i don't share your opinion i'm suddenly trolling? Using your logic, wouldn't that make you a troll too?

Of course you think it's one of the best DLC you've played, after all, you've taken the time out to post on these forums. Like someone else said in a previous post, it's all subjective and to make my point clearer, it's not about whether you enjoyed a certain DLC or not, it's about the amount of content contained within the given DLC.

Well it is the best value  I have ever gotten from DLC. I mean I paid 0 for it. Got a character and 2 quests. And  Ithink 1200 points is a fair price for it for those who buy it used. 800 points for the content.  400 points goes into their pockets to recoup the loss. Sounds fair to me.

[Smoof Smoofy]

Dr Bawbag wrote...

Finiffa wrote...

Dr Bawbag wrote...

... it's all subjective and to make my point clearer, it's not about whether you enjoyed a certain DLC or not, it's about the amount of content contained within the given DLC.

Of course it is also about whether you enjoyed a certain DLC, after all quality >> quantity. Why should I care about a huge DLC thats totally boring?

You keep saying that the amount of content if Stone Prisoner isn't enough, well that is just as subjective, I say it IS enough because it persists througout the entire game.

Then again I bought the game firsthand so I got it for free anyways .

It really isn't about whether a group of individuals enjoyed a certain DLC over another, as coming to a DA:O forum is obviously going to give a scewed account on which DLC is better value for money, so why would i even ask on these forums which DLC is better?  There's always only going to be one winner. Go to a dev forum and there will be individuals that would argue the toss over whether or not **** on a stick was value for money if a certain dev happened to offer it to people.

Would you have had no qualms if Bioware priced the upcomming expansion at $60?  Some people are happy to pay regardless of what's offered to them.  Had the DLC not been included in the game proper and i had decided to purchase it, then i can safely say I'd be a little bit pissed.  Bioware or not.

The problem is that the world is filled with a lot of younger gamers, who don't have any real responsibilities then to have their parents pay for all their stuff, including games.  Half of the people on this forum fit this exact description, where as, the other half is broken into people who can and can't afford the growing prices of DLC.  It is a sad time for gamers, because the ones who don't care about the pricing are going to be the ones who screw up the gaming culture..  

Say what you want, half of you are foolish to buy into this crap.  60 dollars and a few DLC's priced reasonably is fine.  An expansion made in a few months is outrageous.  At this rate dragon age's 60 dollar price will reach well over 200 to 300 dollars.  Then every other developer will be following suit.

[dator97]

my personal opinion is whether you buy the game second hand or not and weather boiware allows people who buy the game new to get the addon free is irrelevant the point is if you are one for a new charater and content to play you will sooner or later fork out the money for that if needed reason is 1. all new dlc made and distributed the charges help keep more content coming. 2. Allso covers any possibl charges in console distribution if any via multi platform. just what i believe

[addiction21]

Smoof Smoofy wrote...


The problem is that the world is filled with a lot of younger gamers, who don't have any real responsibilities then to have their parents pay for all their stuff, including games.  Half of the people on this forum fit this exact description, where as, the other half is broken into people who can and can't afford the growing prices of DLC.  It is a sad time for gamers, because the ones who don't care about the pricing are going to be the ones who screw up the gaming culture..  

Say what you want, half of you are foolish to buy into this crap.  60 dollars and a few DLC's priced reasonably is fine.  An expansion made in a few months is outrageous.  At this rate dragon age's 60 dollar price will reach well over 200 to 300 dollars.  Then every other developer will be following suit.

Got some evidence of this split? Or are you just omnipotent?

YA how dare they take on extra development costs prior to the release to start development on the expansion so we do not have to wait till next fall for one. That is OUTRAGEOUS (kinda like every other claim you made).

Nope Dragon Ages price will stay around 60 dollars (most likely dropping as time goes on) the DLC's will stay around 5,7,15 dollars depending and the expansion might start out being 30-40 dollars but will also drop. In other words you do not NEED the DLC's or expansion.
If you are the great grown up consumer then you would know that it is better to vote with your wallet then to **** on the forums, fling insults, and generalize a large group of people.

It is adorable how dlcs and expansions have been going on for sometime before DAO but IT IS ALL BW's FAULT FOR DESTROYING THE GAMING CULTURE or whatever jibberish.

Modifié par addiction21, 09 janvier 2010 - 10:26 .

[Schneidend]

Dr Bawbag wrote...

The second reason i can fully accept, people trying to justify the content to price ratio, i can't.

This concept of a content to price ratio is idiotic. The price is based on supply and demand, development costs, overhead (i.e. the expenses of the work space where development took place), and profit. No sensible company bases their pricing on the amount of content for the consumer, and it's naive and ignorant of you to expect a company to do so.

[NorseDude]

Think of it this way. You get the game for, say, half the price, then pay to get the DLC. In the end, it would have cost you more if you were to get the game in a store and get the DLC for free.

[Torias]

hazelrock wrote...
I for one, have never owned a new car and there is no demonizing of those that buy used cars the way that it is in the video game market.

There are some differences between cars and games.

* With cars, you actually buy a physical object that degrades over time.
* The value of a second hand car is demonstratably less than a new car (less reliable, etc).
* Cars have a very high variable cost and relatively low fixed cost. So each car sold is profitable.

* With games, you are buying a lisence to use a digital program.
* The value of a second hand game is the same as a first hand game, the digital program does not degrade.
* Games have a very low variable cost and a relatively high fixed cost. So it takes many, many new game sales in order to cover the costs of production.

There are views about second hand game sales, where the retail stores extract an enormous amount of profit from that without contributing any of that to the original creators. This DLC scheme is an innovative attempt to see if the people who make huge investments in game production can find a way to co-exist with with the second hand market.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Hm. The arguments for and against Stone Prisoner being small have made me think. Until Dragon Age I equated expansions like, oh, Throne of Bhaal (for Baldur's Gate 2) or Lord of Destruction (for Diablo 2) to what DLC was supposed to be...that is, (mostly) stand-alone content. If you'd asked me to compare Stone Prisoner to Throne of Bhaal, I'd have said the latter was way better value for money. That additional area you could access, Watcher's Keep or something, that *alone* took me longer to complete than Stone Prisoner (by which I mean simply acquiring Shale and doing Shale's quest).



DLC isn't appending extra content to the end of DA, though, but *inserting* it into the pre-existing game. Where Stone Prisoner is concerned, it may seem short, but adding Shale means changing and adding a whole bunch of stuff throughout the entire game--reactions to appropriate conversations, approval/disapproval, NPCs realising there's a great big stone golem following you around, the mechanics of Shale's unique skills and how they affect all the different creatures in the game. That's a *lot* of work., and having worked on a game I can appreciate the amount of effort it takes to make it work (and try to make it work seamlessly).



Content for price value is a concept, though. Where games are concerned, if I enjoy something then *that* dictates if the price was worth it. Hell, Portal was a really short game, really cheap as well, yet plenty of people would have paid more for it after seeing how much awesome was involved.

[MiSsSmOkEy20]

I was really retarded when I got my game and didnt realize that it was free with the game and I paid to download it lol. So if anyone bought the game second hand and wants to use my free download Ill give you the code for it since it will just go to waste due to my stupidness lol..

[Wolvens5k]

F-C wrote...

no you arnt missing anything. the DLC is ridiculously overpriced. they are targetting the people who have more money than sense and will buy anything for any price just because they want it.

sadly it seems we live in the age of stupidity so they are going to be quite successful targetting that section of the audience. all you can do is just not buy it and move on to another game.

Yeah, just like going with your wife to a movie that lasts 90 minutes, but costs $25 LOL...

If $15 is such a stretch for you maybe it's time to get a job, or maybe stop drinking that $5 cup of coffee in the morning.

IMO, you are missing alot if you don't have the $5-$15 DLC's.  It adds additional stories, voices and different gameplay as well as opening up new areas.  I think DLC's are awesome, and will continue to support it.  The amount of man hours is huge for creating games, DLC's and expansions  and I believe they should be profitable so that they can continue to make more great games.

Modifié par Wolvens5k, 10 janvier 2010 - 12:50 .