99 réponses à ce sujet

[Walsh1980]

The problem so far with dlc's is that they don't scale in price with their game. I'm pretty sure Perfect Dark Zero's dlc is full priced for example. Less and less "ultimate editions" are being released as well. But I suppose that's by design, sell the game digitally for 15-20 bucks, and hope the customer feels they have to spend another 50 bucks to get the full experience.

Mass Effect's dlc has been reasonable to me, although Omega did make me feel like I overpaid for what I got. Not that it wasn't good, but not 5 bucks more than Shadow Broker good.

Modifié par Walsh1980, 04 mars 2013 - 11:54 .

[Aurora313]

I would have preferred all the content to be integrated into the initial release of the game to start with, but no - its not 'profitable' to release a fully realised and wonderfully finished product as it is, as opposed to cutting out giant lore-building chunks and ship off the bare bones off and paying extra cash for all the good bits.

Seriously. I didn't spend $120 or a pre-order just to spend another $50 on content cut from the original release.

I boycot DLC in general. Its a pathetic practice to justify shipping half-completely products to the consumer and claiming the good aparts are just 'extras'.  Take Leviathan's existance for one. It has been foreshadowed since ME1, yet I have to pay an extra $15 to play this rather critical piece of lore when it was included in the original leaked script of the game?

Yeah - I don't think so.

Modifié par Aurora313, 04 mars 2013 - 12:13 .

[DMWW]

devSin wrote...

DMWW wrote...

If "was it worth it?" means "would I pay for it again", then sure, Omega was easily worth $15.

It doesn't really mean the same thing, though. You have no choice but to pay $15, so if it has any worth to you at all, then you'd likely pay for it again.

Okay, but is there any way of making sense of "worth it" other than what someone is actually willing to pay? (at least in the case of luxury goods like computer games - I can see it might be different for things one can't live without)

[Jull3]

swordmalice wrote...

If you compare the DLC's cost with the hours of content it contains, Omega is totally a bad deal. Look at the original ME. If you buy it as a digital download on PSN, it costs the same as Omega ($15) but you get a 40+ hour game with excellent replay value. The Steam version is an even better deal. That's why I have a very hard time swallowing the fact that Omega and Citadel cost the same as a full-fledged digital title. I'm more about getting the best bang for my buck that just having a base need for more content for my games. Maybe one day when I feel like playing more ME3 single-player I'll cave, but for the foreseeable future I will not be buying Omega or Citadel. Sorry BioWare!

Yeah no. ME1  is not a 40+ hour game, even when doing absolutely everything. It was, at longest for me, a 25 hour game. I did everything. That being said, you will put far more than 40 hours because of it's replay value. The DLC are fine as is. You're not forced to buy anything, so to some they're perfect because they won't purchase it. 

Aurora313 wrote...

I would have preferred all the content to be integrated into the initial release of the game to start with, but no - its not 'profitable' to release a fully realised and wonderfully finished product as it is, as opposed to cutting out giant lore-building chunks and ship off the bare bones off and paying extra cash for all the good bits. 

Seriously. I didn't spend $120 or a pre-order just to spend another $50 on content cut from the original release.

I boycot DLC in general. Its a pathetic practice to justify shipping half-completely products to the consumer and claiming the good aparts are just 'extras'.  Take Leviathan's existance for one. It has been foreshadowed since ME1, yet I have to pay an extra $15 to play this rather critical piece of lore when it was included in the original leaked script of the game? 

Yeah - I don't think so.

If by "foreshadowed" you mean it was implied the reapers had a beginning (because synthetics don't just pop up out of no where) then sure, it was "Foreshadowed". If that's not what you meant, then you're wrong. There was nothing "Foreshadowed" about Leviathan, or the catalyst, in ME1 or 2. I do agree cutting stuff from a game to sell as DLC is cheap ( a much better example being "From Ashes") but that doesn't mean every DLC ever was cut from the game. 

I mean, take me2 and Arrival for example. It was "Foreshadowed" because, well, the reapers were obviously coming, but that doesn't mean it was cut from the game. By all means, boycot the shiza out of Bioware and there evil, extra-content agenda but don't force everyone else to watch you spew pessimistic crap all over the place. It's just a messy, rude thing to do.

Edit: Grammar and flow needed tweaked. 

Modifié par Jull3, 04 mars 2013 - 12:28 .

[SerenityRebirth]

 In my opinion, it is dependent on the person and what they consider value within these DLC. I was more than happy forking over money for the Leviathan DLC. Omega, on the other hand, I did buy it but it wasn't as valuable to me as Leviathan. This is mainly because I didn't care as much about this aspect of the story. It's sort of like asking if people think a game is worth 60.00. Depends on what you value. 

[CROAT_56]

omega is the only one I believe should have been 800 and not 1200 but that is just me

[Degs29]

The DLC-model is a horrible overall business strategy.  It may make financial sense on the surface, but it fabricates a load of ill-will against Bioware and EA (something EA really doesn't need).  They've already hit a rut for many people with a sub-par showing with DA2 and the ending of ME3, they don't need to further antagonize them with way over-priced additional content you're obligated to buy if you want the full experience.

I happen to think DA2 was a good game and I really enjoyed ME3 (with the exception of the ending), but if they bothered me as much as they seem to bother other people, these ridiculous DLC price tags would be the icing on the cake.  As it is, Bioware has gone from being my favourite developer a couple years ago, to being mired in a pack of other developers.  So if new content is released by both Bioware and another developer who releases the same quality of work, but at a more reasonable price...guess who I'm going with!

[DMWW]

To me, it looks like an excellent business strategy. DIfferent people have different levels that they'd be willing to pay to buy a game- $60 for some, $100 for others, $150 for others. Without DLC, Bioware would have to pick a single price point; with DLC, they can effectively charge different prices to different people. This is economics 101. And the consumer benefits too, because the base price is lower than the average price point would be. (Or, equivalently, the amount of content you get for a given base price is higher.)

It's theoretically true that if DLC pisses too many people off, it wouldn't make economic sense. (I've never heard a remotely reasonable reason why it pisses anyone off, but that doesn't matter economically.) But I assume EA has done the numbers and concluded that the number of people being pissed off enough for it to affect their purchase levels isn't significant.

[Scottus4]

Mass Effect's dlc has been reasonable to me, although Omega did make me feel like I overpaid for what I got. Not that it wasn't good, but not 5 bucks more than Shadow Broker good.

This is how I feel. Omega was definitely good, but one has to wonder where the extra 5$ of value comes from. Although I think it was less priced to value and more priced to demand - they know enough people will buy it that they'll make more money selling it overvalued relative to the value of other content.

[Lenimph]

Omega was overpriced. I'm a bit angry pants about it still >.>

[inadvisable]

The most important thing is that Origin is not like steam and you can never get discount in DLCs.

[TheBlackBaron]

I don't know if they're inherently too expensive, but I haven't really played enough ME3 to justify getting Omega and now Citadel.

I suspect I will in the future, and maybe I'll get lucky and Microsoft will be having a deal on points or something, but as of right now the value just isn't there for me with my money being tight.

[Degs29]

DMWW wrote...

To me, it looks like an excellent business strategy. DIfferent people have different levels that they'd be willing to pay to buy a game- $60 for some, $100 for others, $150 for others. Without DLC, Bioware would have to pick a single price point; with DLC, they can effectively charge different prices to different people. This is economics 101. And the consumer benefits too, because the base price is lower than the average price point would be. (Or, equivalently, the amount of content you get for a given base price is higher.)

It's theoretically true that if DLC pisses too many people off, it wouldn't make economic sense. (I've never heard a remotely reasonable reason why it pisses anyone off, but that doesn't matter economically.) But I assume EA has done the numbers and concluded that the number of people being pissed off enough for it to affect their purchase levels isn't significant.

Having literally taken economics 101, along with higher level economics courses, then running my own business...I can tell you that many economic models make sense in a vacuum and on paper, but can only be used as reference points in the real world.  From my perspective (and I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong), I believe this DLC-model is short-sighted.  The majority of people would want access to all of the content, and it feels like Bioware is withholding that for their own benefit, then charging exorbinant amounts for it. 

I'd rather have 100% of players pay $90 for a standard game with all the content, than 100% of players pay $60 plus 50% pay $50 on top of that for all the DLC.  I can see very clearly why Bioware didn't do that, and that's fine and justified.  I just can't understand why they charge so much for this DLC when their operating costs associated with each project would be lower than the main game.  I think it would be interesting to see the stat on what percentage of people who purchased the game went on to buy each DLC....

[Ninja Stan]

Degs29 wrote...

Having literally taken economics 101, along with higher level economics courses, then running my own business...I can tell you that many economic models make sense in a vacuum and on paper, but can only be used as reference points in the real world.  From my perspective (and I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong), I believe this DLC-model is short-sighted.  The majority of people would want access to all of the content, and it feels like Bioware is withholding that for their own benefit, then charging exorbinant amounts for it. 

I'd rather have 100% of players pay $90 for a standard game with all the content, than 100% of players pay $60 plus 50% pay $50 on top of that for all the DLC.  I can see very clearly why Bioware didn't do that, and that's fine and justified.  I just can't understand why they charge so much for this DLC when their operating costs associated with each project would be lower than the main game.  I think it would be interesting to see the stat on what percentage of people who purchased the game went on to buy each DLC....

With a product whose average retail price seems to be around $50-$60, it would be difficult to convince people to suddenly accept a 50% price increase. The perceived value of the item would not be enogh to justify that kind of increase, even if you had several DLC packs in there. Some would, but I'm not certain that enough would to make up for the decrease in number of games sold. Sure, 100% would be paying that price, but I would much rather have millions of people paying an expected and average price for a game than perhaps a hundred thousand paying what appears to be a highly inflated price.

DLC attachment rates are probably not as high as you think, but because of the decreased level of investment into their creation, even mildly popular packs are likely profitable. Larger and more expensive packs would require a higher percentage of game owners to buy in, of course.

[Baphomet3]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Degs29 wrote...

Having literally taken economics 101, along with higher level economics courses, then running my own business...I can tell you that many economic models make sense in a vacuum and on paper, but can only be used as reference points in the real world.  From my perspective (and I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong), I believe this DLC-model is short-sighted.  The majority of people would want access to all of the content, and it feels like Bioware is withholding that for their own benefit, then charging exorbinant amounts for it. 

I'd rather have 100% of players pay $90 for a standard game with all the content, than 100% of players pay $60 plus 50% pay $50 on top of that for all the DLC.  I can see very clearly why Bioware didn't do that, and that's fine and justified.  I just can't understand why they charge so much for this DLC when their operating costs associated with each project would be lower than the main game.  I think it would be interesting to see the stat on what percentage of people who purchased the game went on to buy each DLC....

With a product whose average retail price seems to be around $50-$60, it would be difficult to convince people to suddenly accept a 50% price increase. The perceived value of the item would not be enogh to justify that kind of increase, even if you had several DLC packs in there. Some would, but I'm not certain that enough would to make up for the decrease in number of games sold. Sure, 100% would be paying that price, but I would much rather have millions of people paying an expected and average price for a game than perhaps a hundred thousand paying what appears to be a highly inflated price.

DLC attachment rates are probably not as high as you think, but because of the decreased level of investment into their creation, even mildly popular packs are likely profitable. Larger and more expensive packs would require a higher percentage of game owners to buy in, of course.

I kinda agree with both arguments at the same time. That's why I'm still baffled that Bioware/EA decided not to bundle the DLC's for the trilogy(at least in digital distribuition). It's a nice way to make some players pay a good sum for more content, making them feel good about having a "final" product (even if they dont exactly like all the content offered) without having the notion that some content may be overpriced.
For many fans in here, having the definite version is more worthy of their money then simply counting how many hours of content the DLC offers per dollar.

Modifié par Baphomet3, 05 mars 2013 - 12:00 .

[ValintineL]

K2LU533 wrote...

I love the DLCs but of course they are overpriced, in relation to the main game, you aren't getting nearly enough bang for your buck.

[die-yng]

JB27 wrote...

No!!! They are far from too expensive. Look at all the free doc they give us...and then everyone great once in awhile their like "hey, throw a couple bucks our way for this one." Bioware has been perfectly generous with ME3 doc.

I don't think you can actually count the Multiplayer DLC.
I would never, not even once, consider paying for any of the MP stuff, for that the MP is way too simple, with just one mode of gameplay.
And I really don't think a significant number of people would. I think the MP is there to sell the packs, to those people who are willing to spend money on them and to keep the game active on our computers, so that interest in the regular DLC's is kept alive.

Effectively, the only DLC that would have been worth any money was the EC DLC and that was pretty much an attempt to calm at least some of the fans outrage over the ending.



I like that people still discuss this topic, I certainly didn't expect this when I started it, tbh I thought it would be removed within hours by a moderator.^^

I understand when people say, as long as you are feeling that the DLC is worth it, it is worth it. But... there are also other more objective factors. Like what you get for your money? How expensive is it compared to other DLC's and other publishers? How much do you get in relation to the price of the full game.

I am someone who has bought every avalable DLC for every game since DAO, every alternative outift pack, every gear pack, each extension, everything. And I did so gladly. A lot of it was very cheap, and if it wasn't every cheap, I still thought I got my money's worth.
Now, I'm not sure about that anymore. I think the DLC's for ME3 are too expensive. The pricehike between ME2 and ME3 DLC is just to steep and especially with Omega, what you get might not be worth the price.

Just one example how you can do it right.
Witcher 2, a game similarly complex and enetertaining as ME offered an extended Edition with more than 4 hours of new adventures, a new intro, new gear and tons of other stuff. It also included every bit of DLC that had been released beforehand and it was bigger than any Mass Effect DLC, way bigger.
And here's the catch, if you had any of the older editions of the game, you could just download all of this new stuff for free. For Absolutely Nothing!

I don't expect Bioware or EA to go this far, but would it hurt to have sales on DLC from time to time? Or have sales on Bioware points at least? I don't know of any single company selling their own points or in game coin where there never are any sales.
Even on Bioware's own facebook game Age of Champions you regularly get discounts and sales, but not on the big games? But wait, that is not entirely  true, because if you have an X-Box you can get sales and discounts at least indirectly.

How's that fair?

Modifié par die-yng, 07 mars 2013 - 03:47 .

[Unyquez]

Aite a reply from the Legend lol first thing- some of you are saying the price is fine because you have high paying jobs that can afford a 60$ game after tax and all of the 80-1200 msp content to go with it but this is about is doc overpriced.

Yes it is, not because I don't like the dlc, I luv it. The problem is dlc for every game is too expensive, socomcomparing prices is pointless. Look at this example, the elder scrolls games brand new cost the same as any new game, but they have more content then any other game most if not all the time, still cost 60, then they bring you long dlc, filled dlc and much of it. So paying a quarter of the price of a new game brand new, is too much for add ons that don't last anywhere as long, and don't have permanent affects. Think, you can't buy 1200msp you have to buy 1600 or a 800 and 400 which adds on tax. Elder scrolls are the closest to being justified prices. But I could buy a brand new game for this available content, 2 New games if I bought all content.

Now you can't spend more than you make as a company, I get that, but millions of people buying millions of "data" that only has to be copied? Spending barely anything to make this "unlimited" supply of downloadable content? 800 max for each dlc is just fine. I just started to buy the content and looked how much it would cost me and changed my mind lol I have bills, want the content, could afford 20$ for omega, cit, lev and outfits, but 50? Lol no can do, that's way less then what you get in a new game..

[SwitchN7]

Every DLC to every game out there is expensive and overpriced but it is the only way to get that boner back for whatever your pleasure is so... Up to each and everyone to do research and see if it's worth it or not. Leviathan was nice. Citadel was way worth it. Omega was... ok.

[Lars10178]

Citadel was worth every penny, just wish they would add more side missions to the arena.
Omega might have been, but it was fun
Leviathan was worth it

[jackj1998]

The DLC's are a bit expensive, however Bioware did release all the multiplayer DLC for free.

[voteDC]

jackj1998 wrote...

The DLC's are a bit expensive, however Bioware did release all the multiplayer DLC for free.

The thing is do you really believe that anything beyond the first multiplayer DLC would have been free had EA not been making money off the micro-transactions?

While many players would just have played and used in-game credits, a great deal of them also used real money to by Spectre Packs and the like.

[Cainne Chapel]

But thats hardly on Bioware/EA. FAct of the matter is the multiplayer packs added a lot and WERE free. Sure a lot of people probably spent money on buying the stuff instead of ingame credits, but how is that EA/Biowares fault people have more money than sense? If people spent it, they were comfortable doing so and it bears no reflection on anyone but themselves

[Urdnot Amenark]

die-yng wrote...

After the announcement for the Citadel DLC, I started thinking.

If you add up all the SIngle Player DLC, you'd have to pay almost 50 bucks to own every one of them.
That's very close to what the full game cost at some retailers on the first day it was available.
Now, if you add the playtime together you get what? 6 hours + however long the Citadel DLC will be, which is probably not more than 3-4 hours top (and that's generous, you could probably play through them faster).

The whole game is around 25-30 hours of gameplay, if you really do everything.

So basically you almost pay the same amount for around 10 hours of gameplay that you paid for 30 hours.
And that's when the gamemechanics and everything are already in place and you only have to add whatever new games into the DLC, which isn't very much most of the time, if you think about it.

I know, it's that way with DLC's for most games, but I believe we seldom really think about what a bad deal that actually is.

Especially, and that's where it get's really annoying for me, when the DLC for ME2 was much, much cheaper.
Prices are up at least one third over the ME2 DLC's and that is not even counting how much of the ME2 DLC you got for free when you bought the game new (instead of maybe getting a second hand game)-

I don't think it's a fair price hike, especially when prices for the games itself barely changed from ME 2 to ME 3.

From that I continued my line of thought and hit the Free Extended Ending DLC. I thought it was pretty generous and a real nice attempt to reconcile with the majority of fans, after the trainwreck of an ending.
But now I wonder, maybe it was free, but does EA/ Bioware now try to get some of that lost money back, by making the paid DLC's especially expensive?
Maybe Citadel and Omega would have cost 12.- Dollars if it weren't for the EC DLC?
Please do consider that the equipment and appearances packs cost the same as the ones for ME2 did.

What are your thoughts on this?  Am I wrong about it? Did I make a mistake somewhere? Is DLC programming far more expensive than I thought possible?

From Ashes gives you Javik, so I wouldn't count that as overpriced given the pure awesome that he is. Now Omega perhaps was overpriced. It was pretty glitchy too. Leviathan was priced right since it adds alot to the lore and actually feels important in contrast to Omega. Citadel is hands-down the LOTSB of DLC for ME3. Hours of additional content in there, so it's well worth every imaginary MS point.