945 réponses à ce sujet

[Bibdy]

A single fry doesn't let me re-enjoy the same burger all over again, with a different taste at a later date. Nor is a video game as disposable as a meal as a one-time offering. DLC gets me back into the game later on, and keeps things fresh in future play-throughs. That's a very welcome addition to a single-player game. Not to mention all the potential modding content.

Modifié par Bibdy, 13 janvier 2010 - 03:35 .

[Xeper84]

shale ? 5$? you have all those npc reactions to all your party members why should a single new one cost 1/3 of the full game thats crazy!

@ bidby so you agree that whole food analogy is stupid?

Modifié par Xeper84, 13 janvier 2010 - 03:35 .

[Hastymind]

Health care should be free.



Oh, wait...

[addiction21]

Xeper84 wrote...

I will not buy RtO but like every fan i want to play more DA:O ^^.
Even the add-on seems not to be in a reasoned cost/performance ratio (if the length of 15 hours is official) the good stuff about the expansion is that you will be able to buy it for a more rational price after some months. I mean 15 hours for 30 against 70 for 39.99 thats @ least strange... how could they ever release the base game if those 15 hours are as much as they can do for the playing time of that add-on.

First the 15 hour thing. Total BS. Nothing but rumour and here say.
Next it is odd how you compare a lowered price of DAO a few months after its release to the price of the expansion at release.
So what is so wrong about a expansion that will be cheaper then full games but offer the same amount or more playtime? You so want to use that 15 hours so lets do it. Most every FF game I ever played took around that long. Mass Effect is about that length. Same goes for Fallout 1,2,3, and many more.
Is it just because it says "expansion" on the box?

[Bibdy]

No analogy is perfect But, yes, it doesn't really fit comparing a disposable product with a long-lasting one.

[Abriael_CG]

Xeper84 wrote...

no it's not so far away. A complete menu costs about 7$ over here (that is the analogy for DA:O). a single frie is the analogy for the DLC.
A singel frie could be understood as about 1/40 of the complete menu. That's what the dlc is compared to DA:O

in the end i would say that it's a very positive analogy because a single frie is a lot more compared to the menu than the DLC is to DA:O.

No, It's not. The comparison between the duration/value of an entire game and the duration/value of a DLC isn't proper.
The price of the entire game also considers the fact that, when buying the game, you become a customer for that franchise, and you might buy DLC's in the future. That, by itself, completely changes the proportion of values between the two products.

You can try as hard as you like, but there's no real argument that can demonstrate that 5 dollars for a DLC are overpriced, given that there are PLENTY forms of entertainment/service that cost more for the same duration/value, or the same for less.
The fact that the original game has a proportionally lower price means nothing, because the purchase of the original game has a different marketing value, for the developer, than that of additional content.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 13 janvier 2010 - 03:47 .

[Fexelea]

sprybry wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

IMO, Shale as a party member is not worth 15 usd. 

considering for that integrated dlc, you get a party member and 2 quests (complete with voice acting, cut-scenes, and full pc/npc interaction throughout 3/4 of the game), what would you suggest as a fair price for it?

To make such an assessment in a profesional way, I would depend on a number of factors that would refer to marketing data that I do not have.
I can, however, have an opinion as an user with a keen eye, which might be reflected on the fact that Shale was "cut out" but given for free to those who bought the full game instead of a second hand. This would be indicative of second hand sales affecting the bottom line, therefore introducing such a price was directed towards leveraging the difference: used game usd 40, new game usd 60, those 20 recovered by 15(+5) usd on DLC. This would mean the perceived value and the developing costs were not the determining factor, but rather the second hand market "threat" was.
Therefore I stand by my opinion that 15usd for one party member, with 1/8th (actually much less but for the sake of simplicity) of the dialogue available in the game +2 locations is not proportional to 1/4th of the full price for the full game. This can be assessed as meaning the developer is following the gillette model but that would be unlikely, since game development cannot work that way due to the nature of the medium itself: recurrency is key to gillette and it cannot be guaranteed with software, hence the initial investment must have a clear break even and ROI point in expected initial sales. If EA has actually convinced Bioware of doing otherwise, I would be astounded and would start crossing my fingers so that they never fall into that trap again.
My Price for Shale would be a bundle with Warden's Keep for 9.99, without giving it away for free to original customers.

[Xeper84]

The expansion is cheaper but 15 hours is not more than 70.

never played a RPG with 15 hours gameplay time i'am sorry. Even fallout 3 is a lot longer than 15 hours ...and fallout 1&2 ...15 hours for real? ff7 is more about 50 hours of gameplay.

on the price:

It's the euro price i've not seen it for more (on release) over here.

[Xeper84]

"The fact that the original game has a proportionally lower price means nothing, because the purchase of the original game has a different marketing value, for the developer, than that of additional content."



thats a point we completely differ. For me it's a very good rpg with normal length. the witcher for example took me about 10 hours more.

[Abriael_CG]

Xeper84 wrote...
The expansion is cheaper but 15 hours is not more than 70.

Too bad that there's more than just those 15 hours to an expansion. There's a raise of the level cap, new customization options, new skills and talents, all those elements are not just part of the expansion, but raise the value of the original game itself. Ergo, you're not buying the "15 hours" but also an upgrade of the original game, and an improvement to the experience during the first 70 hours, making your argument a whole big logical fallacy.

Xeper84 wrote...
thats a point we completely differ.
For me it's a very good rpg with normal length. the witcher for example
took me about 10 hours more.

So what? You continue to talk like the number of hours of gameplay was the only determining element. For one, while the witcher is a decent game, it's replayability value is much lower than DA:O, secondarily, it's quality (even due to it's budget, that does determine price and value at least in part) isn't even nearly comparable to DA:O

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 13 janvier 2010 - 03:56 .

[Xeper84]

no it's about what it's worth for you! I would not play the whole game a third time because i have one new skill...

I'am relatively sure that there are not as many new skills&talents in that expension as we already have. You describe it as you would have a completely new game with NEW 85 hours of gameplay and thats not the case. It's the same story and the same chars with maybe 20 new reactions to the new char class and some new talents& skills... but you already have skills & talents in the base game and probably a lot more.

[Xeper84]

I love DA:O but i had a lot more fun with The Witcher because of the higher replay value for me. You could influence the whole story leading to different story paths and different endings. In DA:O you have only one Path with some little different reactions and multiple endings.

[Demonic Spoon]

In the end, you'll pay what you're willing to pay. If something doesn't look like it'll provide you enjoyment, then you shouldn't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, then we're obviously charging too much compared to how much they want it. If enough people do buy it, then we're good. Someone can get outraged if they want, but claiming that something is wrong simply because they do want the extra content but don't want to pay for it says more about their level of entitlement than anything else. In the end, we'll still be providing patches for DA (as we did for NWN, which -- surprise, surprise -- also had the "premium modules" for download) and possibly even some free content. With regards to the DLC, you can buy it or not buy it. The decision is yours, to decide whether it's worth anything to you or how entitled you feel to have it in addition to what came with the original game.

Ladies in gentlemen we have someone who understands capitalism.







Anyway, the OP has this sense of entitlement because some developers like Valve add free content in patches. This isn't a terrible idea depending on how much it costs you to create new content due to the positive publicity it generates...but Bioware is free to take whatever path they want. Remember that DLC revenue is used to work on expansions and future games which benefit from the bigger budget.

[Mrcoffee55]

Please direct me where it states that the expansion is 15 hours in length. IIRC it has not been confirmed how long the expansion is.

[0LunarEclipse0]

David Gaider wrote...

Why does anything cost what it does? Why does a 2 hour movie cost $15 for the ticket? Should tickets for 90-minute movies cost less? I bought lunch yesterday for $16 and it took me about 15 minutes to eat. Yet the last novel I bought cost $12 and lasted me several days. I paid $60 for an HBO DVD set which lasted about 13 hours and considered it money well-spent. Yet I'll pay $5 for a greeting card, $16 for a 30-page adventure that will take my gaming group weeks to get through, $1.95 for a 3-minute song on iTunes and $3.50 for the coffee I had yesterday at Starbuck's.
Do all these things cost according to the time it takes to enjoy them? Of course not. Nothing is priced that way. These things are priced as they are because people are willing to pay that price, because they want it.

If you want to look on a video game -- or any piece of video game content -- as only being worth the amount of time it takes to play, that's totally up to you. For me, I've played 10-hr games that I enjoyed immensely, as well as 50-hr games. Did they roughly cost the same? Sure did. Did I feel ripped off? Not at all. Would I prefer to see longer games? Who wouldn't? The fact that some people could still call even a 30-hr game short (never mind one like DA that lasts anywhere from 40-80 hrs by most peoples' reports) certainly means they aren't comparing it to any other game currently being made, but that's their business.

In the end, you'll pay what you're willing to pay. If something doesn't look like it'll provide you enjoyment, then you shouldn't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, then we're obviously charging too much compared to how much they want it. If enough people do buy it, then we're good. Someone can get outraged if they want, but claiming that something is wrong simply because they do want the extra content but don't want to pay for it says more about their level of entitlement than anything else. In the end, we'll still be providing patches for DA (as we did for NWN, which -- surprise, surprise -- also had the "premium modules" for download) and possibly even some free content. With regards to the DLC, you can buy it or not buy it. The decision is yours, to decide whether it's worth anything to you or how entitled you feel to have it in addition to what came with the original game.

---

And with regards to the general level of rhetoric on this thread, let's keep it down. No personal insults and flaming, please. Consider yourself warned.

THIS^

Simple fact is that the developers which we love are doing work, making content and games is their life. So for every day they are writting story or dialouge for RtO they are working. Not to mention the animation, voice acting, level design etc. They are creating, alot of people seem to forget this is a job. As much as Bioware loves it's fan base they NEED to turn a profit. If they do not how do you expect people like David to pay for food or rent, or anything else. In the end as much as this is art, it is also thousands of people's jobs. Would you like to not be paid for your work? I'm guessing not. So once again I say thank you to the developers for working so hard. When RtO is (FINALLY) ready, you will have my $5.

Thank you for everything.

Yours,

Lunar

[Xeper84]

as i said (if it's official) but on the other hand no dev. denied it in that thread.

And i'am really sure that Bioware does not see a lot of those 5$. the money you spend is more a investment in EA.

Modifié par Xeper84, 13 janvier 2010 - 04:25 .

[Abriael_CG]

Xeper84 wrote...

no it's about what it's worth for you! I would not play the whole game a third time because i have one new skill...

I hope you're realizing that this is a strawman argument. Your purposedly downplaying the content of the expansion/DLC in order to further a flawed argument. 

There won't be "one" new skill, thus completely voiding your logic. The notion that the expansion increases the value of the original game on top of it's own value is fact. Ergo, simply comparing X hours to X hours falls very short.

This without even mentioning that the costs for distribution, certification and licensing Bioware has to face in order to sell the DLC on platforms for xbox live and PSN don't depend on the duration of the content, but are pretty much fixed.

You can go on screaming "but it's only X hours!" as much as you like. But the argument simply doesn't cut it.

Mrcoffee55 wrote...

Please direct me where it states that
the expansion is 15 hours in length. IIRC it has not been confirmed how
long the expansion is.

Nowhere. It's complete hearsay and speculation.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 13 janvier 2010 - 04:27 .

[addiction21]

Xeper84 wrote...

as i said (if it's official) but on the other hand no dev. denied it in that thread.

Ya that is some sound logic right there.

[Mrcoffee55]

I highly doubt that Bioware would release a product that is 15 hours in length that costs 40$. IMO it'll end up being around 30-40 hours in game time.

[Abriael_CG]

Mrcoffee55 wrote...

I highly doubt that Bioware would release a product that is 15 hours in length that costs 40$. IMO it'll end up being around 30-40 hours in game time.

it's 40$ only on consoles. On PC it's 30. It simply costs more to publish a console game/expansion.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 13 janvier 2010 - 04:33 .

[Xeper84]

they postet but didn't denied anything. and they have done that stuff for the base game.



If you compare the let's say 140 skills of the base game to let's assume 100 skills of the add-on than it would have less to offer than the base game.

Would those new skills improve the base game ? Yea they would . But in the end i would never say that they are more worth than those of the base game because of that. So they never should cost more than the original ones.

[Mrcoffee55]

Xeper84 wrote...

they postet but didn't denied anything. and they have done that stuff for the base game.

If you compare the let's say 140 skills of the base game to let's assume 100 skills of the add-on than it would have less to offer than the base game.

Would those new skills improve the base game ? Yea they would . But in the end i would never say that they are more worth than those of the base game because of that. So they never should cost more than the original ones.

The expansion doesn't cost more than the base game 

[Argia]

wowpwnslol wrote...

I think it's a huge joke for Bioware to charge outrageous amounts of money for so little content. All of them can be finished in less than an hour and their main purpose is not to advance the story in a meaningful way, but to give player extra items. I can admit that Shale was moderately interesting - but then again they're planning on charging $15 for it, which is ridiculous. Don't get me started on RtO - they are basically recycling old stuff and charging for it. Oh wow, it has some new items. How amazing.

I think if the DLC's were free, it would really show commitment and dedication of Bioware to the community and encourage more people to buy this game. I think they could take a page out of Blizzard's book (free battle.net) on how to treat the fans of their game.

IF you think it should be free, why not use the tool to make us all a nice free module? maybe when you spend a week to make a 10 minute scripting, you'll see there is a value to the well-prepared content...
but seriously, if you make some DLC, Let us know, I'd be very happy to play it:P

[addiction21]

Mrcoffee55 wrote...

Xeper84 wrote...

they postet but didn't denied anything. and they have done that stuff for the base game.

If you compare the let's say 140 skills of the base game to let's assume 100 skills of the add-on than it would have less to offer than the base game.

Would those new skills improve the base game ? Yea they would . But in the end i would never say that they are more worth than those of the base game because of that. So they never should cost more than the original ones.

The expansion doesn't cost more than the base game 

I am sure he bases it on assumptions and some odd ratio that fits and validates his argument. Even tho it is illogical as all get out.

Modifié par addiction21, 13 janvier 2010 - 04:44 .