99 réponses à ce sujet

[die-yng]

N7-RedFox wrote...

No. Mass effect dlc's are not too expensive, they're just too damned short and hardly affect the end game.

Wouldn't that essentiallymake them overpriced and too expensive?


Some interesting points were raised and yes, like I said, DLC's are expensive all over the board, not just for Mass Effect or EA.

It just bothered me that even taking into account how expensive DLC's are in general, ME3's DLC's were even very expensive compared to the DLC's for its predecessor ME2.

I'm not sure that quality of content comes into play that much. Sure, we are likely willing to pay more for better quality, but in the end half an hour entertainment for 15 bucks would be expensive, no matter how good it might be.

AS for the person who compared games to other entertainment and concluded that they were so cheap,
there are some other factors to consider.
Games used to be way longer, they ae getting shorter year by year. Today there are lots of games that offer only 3-7 hours of gameplay.
A paperback can offer you a week of entertainment sometimes, for just 5-10 bucks.
A movie if not seen in cinema but rented and watched at home only costs a few books.

A good idea, would be to really offer DLC's in a bundle after a while, or maybe have sales from time to time. After all, you could get ME1 for the PC for under 10 dollars and the one paid dlc still costs 5 dollars.

I think game publishers today walk a really thin line with what they demand for their DLC's, Capcom probably being the worst among them.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

the problem with omega is 15 dollars didnt feel worth it. Yeah it had the most "fight locations" and 2 "unique" characters but it only had 2 kind of lame enemies (no dragoons, no "hacked" geth bombers (or retextured to be "cerberus" bombers)....(collectors integrated in a way that doesnt ruin me2 would have been interesting as well)

the only things it has going for it are a ton of war assets (Though eezo horde should be in crucible category, and oleg should be in ex-cerberus. its lazy that EVERYTHING was just crammed into alien, like this was an unfinished build?) a ton of exp from +3 medkids scattered EVERYWHERE, some really high level weapon mods, and 2 great powers (flare is great for adept, lash is great for vanguard)

[ZombifiedJake]

Yes, they are. I always feel like the developers are holding back. Short single DLC missions just aren't right for this game.

I've never paid full price for any of the Mass Effect DLC.

[Sanunes]

die-yng wrote...

N7-RedFox wrote...

No. Mass effect dlc's are not too expensive, they're just too damned short and hardly affect the end game.

Wouldn't that essentiallymake them overpriced and too expensive?


Some interesting points were raised and yes, like I said, DLC's are expensive all over the board, not just for Mass Effect or EA.

It just bothered me that even taking into account how expensive DLC's are in general, ME3's DLC's were even very expensive compared to the DLC's for its predecessor ME2.

I'm not sure that quality of content comes into play that much. Sure, we are likely willing to pay more for better quality, but in the end half an hour entertainment for 15 bucks would be expensive, no matter how good it might be.

AS for the person who compared games to other entertainment and concluded that they were so cheap,
there are some other factors to consider.
Games used to be way longer, they ae getting shorter year by year. Today there are lots of games that offer only 3-7 hours of gameplay.
A paperback can offer you a week of entertainment sometimes, for just 5-10 bucks.
A movie if not seen in cinema but rented and watched at home only costs a few books.

A good idea, would be to really offer DLC's in a bundle after a while, or maybe have sales from time to time. After all, you could get ME1 for the PC for under 10 dollars and the one paid dlc still costs 5 dollars.

I think game publishers today walk a really thin line with what they demand for their DLC's, Capcom probably being the worst among them.

I get what you are saying, but Mass Effect games are still 30 to 40 hours in length, the problem is length of game is being sacrificed for other things players want, for graphic and audio improvements have been made while the length decreases, or the fact game prices really haven't changed since the 1980's I remember paying $80 for NES games.  So should be sacrificed for a longer game?

As far as your comparison for movies and books, you can also say video games only cost $10 if you wait a little longer too, but people want it right away and will spend $30 on a hardcover and be through it in a few hours, or people will go see a movie in 3D and spend $18 on a hour and a half movie.  Omega wasn't $15 for 30min of content the concensus here was that it took about two to two and a half hours.  The only place I know of that doesn't eventually offer a sale on DLC is EA, but who knows what might happen eventually.

[tanisha__unknown]

weapon packs - decide for yourself, I got one of them, price was acceptable
alternate appearance pack - again, decide for yourself, not for me, but price tag does not seem unreasonable to me
From Ashes - definitely worth it
Leviathan - totally worth it
Omega - fun, but overpriced

[FlamingBoy]

dlc have always been overpriced,

honestly I am beginning to wonder if the short terms gains will be able to mitigate potential long term losses

[chance52]

It isn't that the cost itself is too high it's that the amount of content you get for that price is well under the amount you get for similar prices for other companies DLC.

Consider that for $5 more than the Omega DLC, Skyrim sold you Dawnguard. That gave you 2 paths to follow that were mutually exclusive and amounted to 15 hours where Omega was promoted as their largest DLC by double and gave you 1 path that amounted to 2-3 hours.

EA sells a virtual couch to the Sims 3 players for $20 because they can and now BioWare is falling in line with their parent company. Providing less and less content at increasingly higher prices until they reach the point of diminishing returns. It is only when the step over that line that they will step back, if only a little, and that will be the price for all the DLC. My guess is when they start selling 3 DLC swords in their Dragon Age 3 for $45 they will realize the highest they should have gone before losing profits was 3 swords for $39.99...

There is a common saying, 'a fool and his money are soon parted' and it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that printed and framed on the wall of many EA offices. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people are fools for wanting more content and paying for it, I'm saying its foolish to think that you aren't being sold a fast food burger that is being priced and marketed as a lobster dinner.

Modifié par chance52, 02 mars 2013 - 04:50 .

[ofarrell]

I don't know if you're factoring in multiple playthroughs but each of mine are 20-25 hours long and I play through the game at least 3 times so I kind of feel like I am getting an alright deal.

[Sanunes]

chance52 wrote...

It isn't that the cost itself is too high it's that the amount of content you get for that price is well under the amount you get for similar prices for other companies DLC.

Consider that for $5 more than the Omega DLC, Skyrim sold you Dawnguard. That gave you 2 paths to follow that were mutually exclusive and amounted to 15 hours where Omega was promoted as their largest DLC by double and gave you 1 path that amounted to 2-3 hours.

EA sells a virtual couch to the Sims 3 players for $20 because they can and now BioWare is falling in line with their parent company. Providing less and less content at increasingly higher prices until they reach the point of diminishing returns. It is only when the step over that line that they will step back, if only a little, and that will be the price for all the DLC. My guess is when they start selling 3 DLC swords in their Dragon Age 3 for $45 they will realize the highest they should have gone before losing profits was 3 swords for $39.99...

There is a common saying, 'a fool and his money are soon parted' and it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that printed and framed on the wall of many EA offices. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people are fools for wanting more content and paying for it, I'm saying its foolish to think that you aren't being sold a fast food burger that is being priced and marketed as a lobster dinner.

I am not going to defend the price of Omega because like many people it seems to be too high, but the other DLC BioWare has offered is generally better then what other companies offer for paid DLC.  Look at FPS games they charge $15 for multiplayer maps that you pretty much have to buy if you want to play online because if you don't you won't be able to access games where they are played and normally the newer maps are the more popular ones.

I can't speak with accuracy about Skyrim, but with Fallout 3 and the DLC they offered yes if felt big, but at the same time it didn't feel new to me either it just felt like I unlocked additional content that they didn't bother to try and make better.  As far as Dawnguard for $20 don't forget about Hearthfire for $5 you got a house with no real additional content for the game.  All companies are looking towards trying to get more money, its not just EA or BioWare and they aren't the worse cases.   Too me the worst thing for gaming is releasing multiple editions of the game so you have to buy the release game mutliple times to get access to all the missions, I am looking at Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed 3 with having seven different versions of the game and you had to buy at least two to get all the game content unless you bought it on the PC then you just had to use the UbiSoft store for a digital copy.

[Harbinger1985HU]

Baelrahn wrote...
I'd rather spend money to get more of my favourite game/franchise, than paying (in some extreme cases) just a little more for a full game that I don't enjoy nearly as much. So yes, I'm a slave. That's the benefit of having a compelling lore: people get hooked.

I'm on the same statement. I so far bought all ME DLCs for the trilogy. They worth ,even the weapon packs or the armors. Why pick-up a Steam sale game which maybe I play once then forget. Rather buy content the game I love and play all the time.

Anyway, Citadel could be cheaper, but COD has worst pricing. 15 dollars for a few maps.

[TheProtheans]

I paid $15 for DLC so far.
I can say I won't be going over $30 for the other two DLC's.
I'd buy Omega and Citadel on sale for $15.

[AlexMBrennan]

15 dollars for a few maps.

How is that any different? $15 to greatly increase your enjoyment of the game you already own?

[DayusMakhina]

They are certainly getting there on the being too expensive front considering all of the pricing has crept up from the prices of ME2 DLC:

• From Ashes is comparable on a content level to Kasumi: Stolen Memory, which was 560 MSP rather than 800 MSP.
• Leviathon is comparable to Overlord, which again has a pricing difference of 560 MSP to 800 MSP.
• Omega was comparable on a content level (I figured I best add this bit in, because that's the only place it's remotely comparable) to Lair of the Shadow Broker, which was 800 MSP rather than 1200 MSP

I did still enjoy all of the content though, even if it was a bit too pricey. At the end of the day value is in the eye of the beholder, some people might not have an issue with shelling out, for some it might not be viable, whereas others may simple not on principle.

I was personally on the fence when it came to Omega as to whether I should get it or not, but I caved and regretted it because it simply was not worth the price... although i'm still intending on getting Citadel on release. That probably makes me a sucker.

[Robhuzz]

I only have one piece of ME3 dlc which is from ashes (came free with my CE which I got for the price of a regular edition) and, even though I didn't pay anything for it, it's overpriced. No question about it. It cost 10 dollars but it was supposed to be part of the main game so it should have come free of charge. There's no excuse for cutting out content that's supposed to be in the main game and selling it for extra money. It's disgusting.

I haven't played the other dlc so I cannot comment on that.

[Renew81]

HenkieDePost wrote...

Meh, not really too expensive tbh. The problem for me is that Origin doesn't provide a good paying platform for me and alot of other Dutch users. I wanted to actually buy all those great DLC's, simply because they hold key elements regarding the story (Leviathan as the biggest example), but I don't have a creditcard and I don't want to fill in all those forms. I can pay with "Ideal" on steam, which makes buying games and dlc easy as hell, so why can't I on origin? They are worth the money, if you can actually spend it.

I am Dutch and i have always been using ideal together with origin from the start i cant remember
how i set it up etc , if i want to purchase something on Origin it automatically takes me to the ideal option
all mass effect games and dlc can be bought this way , so if i was you i would look a bit deeper into it
because its certainly possible and yes it is indeed one of the better payment options.

[Teeebs]

Yes, much too expensive. Omega was a HUGE ripoff, way too short, and painfully unpolished.

[grimkillah]

All DLCs are overpriced, I would never buy a single one of them unless its 50% off or more.

[gisle]

I think the actual game is underpriced. You see, development costs for AAA games increases by the year as technology demands more, VAs get paid better, etc... Yet you still pay 60$ for a game. That's why corners are cut, not because developers are lazy.

[zsom]

Your formula saying game time * price tag = total cost + profit is a bit wrong. To get the ROI you of course need to factor in the nr of units sold. In other words DLC content is more expensive than base game content because you can't sell as many copies, so you need to increase the price a bit to compensate. The same reason why expansions used to cost about half of a normal game with maybe one third of the content.

And the reason for the lower nr of units sold is also easy to understand. DLCs don't have big marketing campaigns, you need the base game to play them, no matter how awesome the game is some consumers will surely be displeased with it, or they will just go on to play a different title and forget about yours.

Edit: Sorry, I meant to say ROI not ROE.

Modifié par zsom, 02 mars 2013 - 05:53 .

[Indoctrination]

From The Ashes: $10
Leviathan: $10
Omega: $15
Citadel: $15
Total: $50

Approximate price of a new copy of Mass Effect 3 today: $15-20.

The answer is yes, these DLCs are ridiculously overpriced.

[AlanC9]

By that logic all new games are overpriced too.

[Robhuzz]

Gisle-Aune wrote...

I think the actual game is underpriced. You see, development costs for AAA games increases by the year as technology demands more, VAs get paid better, etc... Yet you still pay 60$ for a game. That's why corners are cut, not because developers are lazy.

Or they could... you know... not spend such ridiculous amounts of money on marketing and put those resources into creating a better game. It will be better received by gamers and they would spread it around, leading to better sales and more profits.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 02 mars 2013 - 08:29 .

[pmac_tk421]

Yeah, I'm usually behind Bioware on most issues(Yes, I liked the endings) but I agree that $15 is too much for DLC. $10 was fine for SP DLC.

[DMWW]

Robhuzz wrote...

Gisle-Aune wrote...

I think the actual game is underpriced. You see, development costs for AAA games increases by the year as technology demands more, VAs get paid better, etc... Yet you still pay 60$ for a game. That's why corners are cut, not because developers are lazy.

Or they could... you know... not spend such ridiculous amounts of money on marketing and put those resources into creating a better game. It will be better received by gamers and they would spread it around, leading to better sales and more profits.

Hang on - you seriously think that you know more about how to maximise profit for the sale of a particular computer game than the company that's doing the selling? What on Earth makes you think that?

[Sanunes]

Robhuzz wrote...

Gisle-Aune wrote...

I think the actual game is underpriced. You see, development costs for AAA games increases by the year as technology demands more, VAs get paid better, etc... Yet you still pay 60$ for a game. That's why corners are cut, not because developers are lazy.

Or they could... you know... not spend such ridiculous amounts of money on marketing and put those resources into creating a better game. It will be better received by gamers and they would spread it around, leading to better sales and more profits.

Sure and fans can stop demanding for high quality textures and audio too, that is what drives the companies to make games they are is because of the feedback they are getting.  Look at these boards people are saying they want Dragon Age Inquisition to be developed for the PC first because they don't want it to be a "downgraded game" by developing it for consoles first.