945 réponses à ce sujet

[B10Reaper]

14 pages for a troll. good work guys.
EDIT: I laughed pretty hard at the irony of my post making it 15....

Modifié par B10Reaper, 13 janvier 2010 - 04:52 .

[Irovagh]

The funnest thing about this entire thread is that the OP hasn't posted since well before David G posted. I think he got the hint. I guess there will always be that 10%.

[adembroski11]

If the DLCs were free, there'd be no DLCs. /thread

[Frozeal]

 10/10 for OP

Have this:

[Magic Zarim]

The argument that hard working devs must be paid? That's your new justification excuse for EA/Bioware to sell overpriced content compared to the game? Oh the ideal consumer drones you are.



DragonAge: The Game already nets more money than dev payrolls. It's money that nicely flows into EA's pocket. You know there is a reason EA consumed Bioware. Because they make money by it and lots of it!



Don't worry about hard working devs being rewarded, that does NOT hinge with DLC sales.As someone else posted, in fact DLC is an excellent (from an EA point of view) to rake in cash, it's VERY lucrative.



Go ahead and bend over folks. I hear EA feels better than rogues from behind

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

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.

I do see your point on the lenght it takes to beat a game and it not being relevant to price, I agree, value does not equal time. Im more worried of the pricing on content that was already in the game just locked away. Out of scratch DLC's I completely agree on pricing. Something that has been made completely new and was never part of the official software should be priced accordingly. But a DLC such as Stone Prisoner that was part of the main game and was removed, only to be put back in final minute and those who dont buy the first few copies have t pay 15 dollars seems like a bit much. I am not saying it shouldnt be charged for seeing as how it had some work to be done and was very well crafted im saying the price shouldnt be so over blown to $15, maybe $7 like wardens keep highest would be 10$ since it had a bit more. But it does seem a bit expensive. I myself bought it as I felt it was worth it, not to mention my perfectionism dissorder which makes me crave seeing everything throught to the outmost detail. What my point is it shouldnt be free but it shouldnt be a bump on the shoulder and a five minute later realization of a loss of $5.

[Peeker2009]

Okay, I think most ppl understand the point that if you don't like something, don't buy it. This may seem like a terrific argument in a thread like this one (QED) but in the end it can be used in nearly any topic that addresses the relationship between businesses and their consumers.

Many people in this thread have simply pointed to one basic principle of capitalism (the individuals choice to purchase or not) and have indicated that this is the end of the argument as far as they are concerned. Well, it isn't quite the end of it for me.

There are different forms/extremes of capitalism - Capitalism the U.S.A (as it seems to me) would have citizens pay for absolutely everything and if you can't pay for everything then you are not really part of the society, a "failure" or "loser". Australian capitalism includes a comprehensive welfare system as well as free medical care for all citizens who can't afford or just don't have private health insurance (something that Obama is trying to change in the U.S with much resistence from capitalist fundamentalists).

Capitalism doesn't have to preclude a sense of fair play. The consumer has the right (or duty even) to be informed about the products they are buying and part of this is achieved through word-of-mouth. If I feel that a product is trying to rip ppl off (not that I accuse Bioware of doing this at all) do I not have the right to tell others of my opinion? Wouldn't I want others to tell me of theirs? The flow of information/opinions is very much a part of any capitalist system. Or do we just want to hear from those whose ideas agree with ours?

It's funny how analogies are used to further an argument, or should I say it's irritating how selectively we use them. For example, the humble cup of coffee has often been brought into this discussion to compare relative values, but if I wished think I could use the analogy quite differently in a case against DLC. Imagine if Starbuck's announced a new policy that milk and sugar were now considered extras to be purchased seperately, or the cups for that matter. Okay there are plenty of cafes to choose from, so it probably wouldn't work so well, but who knows - perhaps their would be enough loyal customers to make it work.

Of course the analogy breaks down when we look at computer games. We pretty much know what goes into making a cup of coffee so they would be hard-pressed to demand more money for the same product, but can we be so sure when it comes to something as complex as a computer games? Can it be justified or is it the thin edge of the wedge? If this new business practice is successful, will it mean that all game developers will employ the tactic in future? Will it mean that every game I buy in future will be sliced into portions to be served up gradually?

I can certainly imagine a developer spruiking the concept of a new game to a board of directors, and the directors, after thanking him/her, then privately working out how they could slice up the game in order to make a greater profit. How can we be so sure that the DLC wasn't part of the original game? and yes, games are getting shorter overall.

Those who complain about the DLC, are imo not really worried about the money, they are concerned that a precedent has been set, one that will soon catch on, and will change their experiences with all games forever. That when they buy their copy from the shop, it will immediately feel incomplete, and they will have to make many more purchasing decisions along the way, to enjoy the game as it was really meant to be enjoyed. Yes, this is capitalism at work and we have the choice to play it their way or not at all.

Personally speaking, I would much prefer to pay more for the original game and feel sure that I was getting the full experience, and then wait for the expansion, but that's just me

EDIT: Actually if we were constantly reminded that most coffee farmers get less than 2 cents from every $5 cup of coffee, that many in Kenya are clothed in rags, we would/should reassess what anything is really "worth".

Modifié par Peeker2009, 13 janvier 2010 - 09:11 .

[TheGriffonsShallRiseAgain]

Peeker2009 wrote...

Okay, I think most ppl understand the point that if you don't like something, don't buy it. This may seem like a terrific argument in a thread like this one (QED) but in the end it can be used in nearly any topic that addresses the relationship between businesses and their consumers.

Many people in this thread have simply pointed to one basic principle of capitalism (the individuals choice to purchase or not) and have indicated that this is the end of the argument as far as they are concerned. Well, it isn't quite the end of it for me.

There are different forms/extremes of capitalism - Capitalism the U.S.A (as it seems to me) would have citizens pay for absolutely everything and if you can't pay for everything then you are not really part of the society, a "failure" or "loser". Australian capitalism includes a comprehensive welfare system as well as free medical care for all citizens who can't afford or just don't have private health insurance (something that Obama is trying to change in the U.S with much resistence from capitalist fundamentalists).

Capitalism doesn't have to preclude a sense of fair play. The consumer has the right (or duty even) to be informed about the products they are buying and part of this is achieved through word-of-mouth. If I feel that a product is trying to rip ppl off (not that I accuse Bioware of doing this at all) do I not have the right to tell others of my opinion? Wouldn't I want others to tell me of theirs? The flow of information/opinions is very much a part of any capitalist system. Or do we just want to hear from those whose ideas agree with ours?

It's funny how analogies are used to further an argument, or should I say it's irritating how selectively we use them. For example, the humble cup of coffee has often been brought into this discussion to compare relative values, but if I wished think I could use the analogy quite differently in a case against DLC. Imagine if Starbuck's announced a new policy that milk and sugar were now considered extras to be purchased seperately, or the cups for that matter. Okay there are plenty of cafes to choose from, so it probably wouldn't work so well, but who knows - perhaps their would be enough loyal customers to make it work.

Of course the analogy breaks down when we look at computer games. We pretty much know what goes into making a cup of coffee so they would be hard-pressed to demand more money for the same product, but can we be so sure when it comes to something as complex as a computer games? Can it be justified or is it the thin edge of the wedge? If this new business practice is successful, will it mean that all game developers will employ the tactic in future? Will it mean that every game I buy in future will be sliced into portions to be served up gradually?

I can certainly imagine a developer spruiking the concept of a new game to a board of directors, and the directors, after thanking him/her, then privately working out how they could slice up the game in order to make a greater profit. How can we be so sure that the DLC wasn't part of the original game? and yes, games are getting shorter overall.

Those who complain about the DLC, are imo not really worried about the money, they are concerned that a precedent has been set, one that will soon catch on, and will change their experiences with all games forever. That when they buy their copy from the shop, it will immediately feel incomplete, and they will have to make many more purchasing decisions along the way, to enjoy the game as it was really meant to be enjoyed. Yes, this is capitalism at work and we have the choice to play it their way or not at all.

Personally speaking, I would much prefer to pay more for the original game and feel sure that I was getting the full experience, and then wait for the expansion, but that's just me

Best argument I have read in the entire thread. Nuff Said

[Ponce de Leon]

Oh well, I'd personally buy DLC, were they not DLC. I don't like to buy things online and download them. If the DLCs would become 3 times more expensive but would be boxed and disc-ed and shipped in shops, I would buy them. Dragon age is worth any small money for now.

[jelf rs]

Just look at The Witcher, after releasing The Witcher CD Projekt used almost a whole year to improve the game with the Enhanced Edition and two complete new adventures with full voice-over.
All for free.
What Bioware is doing now is to cut off some of the contents that should come with the original release and release them as DLCs to get more money.

[kansadoom]

jelf rs wrote...

Just look at The Witcher, after releasing The Witcher CD Projekt used almost a whole year to improve the game with the Enhanced Edition and two complete new adventures with full voice-over.
All for free.
What Bioware is doing now is to cut off some of the contents that should come with the original release and release them as DLCs to get more money.

So you would rather bioware waited until now to release the game just so you get free additional content

[Fraevar]

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.

I definately agree with you on demand vs. value, Mr. Gaider. I think that, buried underneath all the bluster of the OP was perhaps frustration that DLC has become monitized since the arrival of the Xbox 360 and Microsoft's refusal to provide free content on the platform. The trigger here being that content is increasingly getting charged for on all platforms, not just X360, though, especially the type of content that was typically free before on the PC - like map packs and texture mods. I think a lot of people out there are actually frustrated that suddenly they are being charged on one platform, because a different platform holder mandates that everything needs to cost on the platform they operate.

Not that this excuses the pure nerdrage in this thread, naturally.

[a1021]

Magic Zarim wrote...

DragonAge: The Game already nets more money than dev payrolls. It's money that nicely flows into EA's pocket. You know there is a reason EA consumed Bioware. Because they make money by it and lots of it!

i don't see what the problem with that is. of course ea wants to get more money back than they invested. that's the whole idea of it and perfectly normal...

[Torias]

Magic Zarim wrote...

DragonAge: The Game already nets more money than dev payrolls.

Ummm, wah?

Where did you read that?

[jelf rs]

kansadoom wrote...

jelf rs wrote...

Just look at The Witcher, after releasing The Witcher CD Projekt used almost a whole year to improve the game with the Enhanced Edition and two complete new adventures with full voice-over.
All for free.
What Bioware is doing now is to cut off some of the contents that should come with the original release and release them as DLCs to get more money.

So you would rather bioware waited until now to release the game just so you get free additional content

CD Projekt released the game in Oct 2007 and started working on patches, extra adventures and the enhanced edition. In Sept 2008, they released the Enhanced Edition which includes new adventures and improved graphics, gameplay and performance. The original owners of the game can download the Enhanced Edition for free. Between 2007 and 2008 they released a series of patches and new adventures, all can be downloaded for free.

[a1021]

Peeker2009 wrote...

I can certainly imagine a developer spruiking the concept of a new game to a board of directors, and the directors, after thanking him/her, then privately working out how they could slice up the game in order to make a greater profit. How can we be so sure that the DLC wasn't part of the original game? and yes, games are getting shorter overall.

Those who complain about the DLC, are imo not really worried about the money, they are concerned that a precedent has been set, one that will soon catch on, and will change their experiences with all games forever. That when they buy their copy from the shop, it will immediately feel incomplete, and they will have to make many more purchasing decisions along the way, to enjoy the game as it was really meant to be enjoyed. Yes, this is capitalism at work and we have the choice to play it their way or not at all.

but dragon age was a complete game from the beginning. i really don't understand these conspiracy theories. the dlc are mostly like professional addins, they don't add anything you really need.
"capitalism at work" would be when not enough people buy the dlcs and their price would be lowered or their production stopped. bioware even gave us the toolset to make free competition for their dlcs. so you just have to make a better product, give it away for free and the prices would propably drop. capitalism works really easy...

[kansadoom]

jelf rs wrote...

kansadoom wrote...

jelf rs wrote...

Just look at The Witcher, after releasing The Witcher CD Projekt used almost a whole year to improve the game with the Enhanced Edition and two complete new adventures with full voice-over.
All for free.
What Bioware is doing now is to cut off some of the contents that should come with the original release and release them as DLCs to get more money.

So you would rather bioware waited until now to release the game just so you get free additional content

CD Projekt released the game in Oct 2007 and started working on patches, extra adventures and the enhanced edition. In Sept 2008, they released the Enhanced Edition which includes new adventures and improved graphics, gameplay and performance. The original owners of the game can download the Enhanced Edition for free. Between 2007 and 2008 they released a series of patches and new adventures, all can be downloaded for free.

Ah ok, yes it would be cool to do it like that but I dont think it is ever going to happen with dragon age

[Apocalizz]

Yes, it's outrageous that we should pay people for a job well done...everything in the world should be freeeeee.....



... wait, what?



PS: I was forced to watch New Moon in the movie theatre...it was my birthday gift from my Twilight crazed sister. Let me tell you, Warden's Keep >>>>> watching New Moon in a theatre filled with 16 year olds with the attention span of a goldfish. I didn't think it was that expensive at all

[jelf rs]

a1021 wrote...

Peeker2009 wrote...

I can certainly imagine a developer spruiking the concept of a new game to a board of directors, and the directors, after thanking him/her, then privately working out how they could slice up the game in order to make a greater profit. How can we be so sure that the DLC wasn't part of the original game? and yes, games are getting shorter overall.

Those who complain about the DLC, are imo not really worried about the money, they are concerned that a precedent has been set, one that will soon catch on, and will change their experiences with all games forever. That when they buy their copy from the shop, it will immediately feel incomplete, and they will have to make many more purchasing decisions along the way, to enjoy the game as it was really meant to be enjoyed. Yes, this is capitalism at work and we have the choice to play it their way or not at all.

but dragon age was a complete game from the beginning. i really don't understand these conspiracy theories. the dlc are mostly like professional addins, they don't add anything you really need.
"capitalism at work" would be when not enough people buy the dlcs and their price would be lowered or their production stopped. bioware even gave us the toolset to make free competition for their dlcs. so you just have to make a better product, give it away for free and the prices would propably drop. capitalism works really easy...

If that's what you are saying then all those side quests should also be released as DLCs as well?
Maybe they could release a Blackstone irregulators DLC and a Crow's Trial DLC too.
Maybe you would say that the the Warden's Keep DLC adds a few new talents. They could remove the Stealing Skill from the original game and add it with the Slim Couldry DLC.
Or buy the Dalish Elf DLC and get a whole new series of quests in Brecilian Forest and an extra army to help you during the final battle with the darkspawn.
Maybe they could just let you play the origin and ostagar and go straight to the battle with the archdemon.
That can be a complete story as well. Is that what you want?

[JaymesGaGa]

Keep trollin', trollin', trollin'.

[Franpa]

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.

Yes RTO should be free, it's not as if they needed to hire script writers or devs to code/create the new map layouts etc.

Modifié par Franpa, 13 janvier 2010 - 11:33 .

[Tankkiller1337]

And nobody was able to refute the Valve argument, so who is out of arguments against free DLC now?

[Hulk Hsieh]

Peeker2009 wrote...

Capitalism doesn't have to preclude a sense of fair play. The consumer has the right (or duty even) to be informed about the products they are buying and part of this is achieved through word-of-mouth. If I feel that a product is trying to rip ppl off (not that I accuse Bioware of doing this at all) do I not have the right to tell others of my opinion? Wouldn't I want others to tell me of theirs? The flow of information/opinions is very much a part of any capitalist system. Or do we just want to hear from those whose ideas agree with ours?

I'm all for sharing opinions.
But an opinion on a product one has not even bought and experienced isn't increasing her/his credibility. 

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 13 janvier 2010 - 11:49 .

[BruceVC]

Crimzon Nutcase wrote...

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.

^Not This.

I disagree ,I have just come back from America and I could buy take-aways for 7-15 $..as in Junk food that lasts 10 minutes  .If you consider DLC content takes hundreds of hours to compile and make sure it is compatible then I really don't consider the money to purchase DLC content  as " outrageous “ .
Unless of course you also don’t spend any  money on take-aways  ..in which case my analogy is moot   (cause you really are a skinflint  )