945 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

jelf rs wrote...
And this is the difference between Valve and CD Projekt, and Bioware. The former two provide a better continues support, updates and extra contents for free but they get better goodwill. While Bioware/EA provides these only to earn more money. I won't say Bioware is wrong but in comparison it seems it's less responsible than the others.
(Note to fanboys: I'm not saying Bioware is not responsible but only LESS responsible) Of course Bioware is already very responsible comparing to lots of other developers, but there's always room for improvements no?

Ok, that's a fairly reasoned response.  I don't know that I agree about the "goodwill" or the "responbility" angles, but yes, some companies provide for free what others charge.  And there's a fair comparision to be made, sure.

Some games charge for using their servers (MMO's) and others provide servers for free (Starcraft and other such non-MMMO Blizzard games.)  Ignoring for a moment that they are different styles of games, why can one provide servers for free?

Also, sometimes things that you can get "for free" (legitmately) can later be purchased.  Is it "ripping off" people that Megatokyo and other web comics are reprinted and sold for money when they appear online from the creators for free?  Is it "unfair" that web series like The Guild or Dr. Horrible can be viewed, legally, for free online but you have to pay if you want a DVD copy?   For that matter, what "idiots" buy those products when they can legitimately get the content for free.

Oh, wait, I'm one of those "idiots" who like The Guild, Dr. Horrible, Megatokyo, PVP, etc., and buy their merchandise and copies of their work even though I can get the work for free from them as I want to support them and their creativity.

*shrug*

Maybe there's more development involved with a game like Dragon Age: Origins than with Half-Life 2?  Maybe Bioware doesn't license out their engines as often or as successfully as the Valve game engines are?  Maybe there are legitimate financial reasons (besides greed, irresponsiblity, laziness, etc.) for why one company has to charge for what another can give away for free as part of it's products?

EDIT - also fair to note that jelf rs's response to my quote didn't actually respond to my quote - I fail to see the connection between what he wrote and what I initially wrote but whatever

Modifié par MerinTB, 13 janvier 2010 - 04:26 .

[addiction21]

I bought half life 2 so why did I have to purchase the episodes?

[CakesOnAPlane]

Just to say valve has Steam as a HUGE source of income, and they are totally independant with it on pc so they can afford to do this, and in doing so can boost sales of the game with weekend deals (TF2) to make profit. Maybe the new bioware mmo will become their source of income, but for now I understand charging for it.



Also valve games are much better than average but thats another discussion.

[jelf rs]

Abriael_CG wrote...
The real difference is that Valve and CD Projekt provide very average games (with a few above average ones for Valve, but that is outweighted by their lazyness in learning to program on the PS3). Bioware has a track record of masterpieces, and DA:O is no exception.

That aside, Bioware's games always have an extremely high budget, with extensive first tier voice acting and writing that both Valve and CD Projekt can only dream of.
Such things have a cost, and costs have to be offset. It's that simple.

Umm.... I find it quite meaningless to argue with super fanboys like you......
You are like "Bioware, charge me more please!"
Good luck. I'm sure there wil be more ways for you to give money to them.
btw, could you stop using "grasping at straws" please.
I know your language teacher just taught you this idiom today and you are eager to use it.
But perhaps you should use it on yourself instead.

[addiction21]

CakesOnAPlane wrote...

Just to say valve has Steam as a HUGE source of income, and they are totally independant with it on pc so they can afford to do this, and in doing so can boost sales of the game with weekend deals (TF2) to make profit. Maybe the new bioware mmo will become their source of income, but for now I understand charging for it.

Also valve games are much better than average but thats another discussion.

Well also TF2 is one of those games that you need people to actualy be playing it and the best way to keep it fressh is to continue to inject fresh content in there to keep more people around and playing.

[DoctorPringles]

The reason games like diablo and starcraft have free servers is because it requires very little oversight to run. In an MMO, there has to be constant tracking of cheaters, glitches, player issues brought up in-game, and there are updates almost daily fixing small things here and there, as well as weekly or monthly updates adding new content. Starcraft and diablo do not have such updates, if any at all anymore, and the support from staff is negligible at best. The reason you have to pay for WoW is because the staff who work on it have to have an income. Ever notice the big difference between Guild Wars and WoW? WoW has content constantly being added to it. New talents, spells, areas, monsters, items, all for free and added in during the regular updates. Sure, the Guild Wars staff updates their game, but it is far less frequent and almost never adds new content. THAT is the big difference between a pay to play mmo and a "free" mmo.



Such is the issue with single player games. In order for us to get -any- DLC, they have to pay their staff. How do you expect them to pay their staff if they don't charge for the DLC's. Don't forget, there's alot of people involved in just a small, $5 DLC. They have to pay developers, designers, testers, supervisors, operators, receptionists, maintenance guys and way more just to create that one DLC. That is -alot- of paychecks Bioware has to write. Plus, they need enough money leftover to churn a profit, otherwise the entire venture is for naught. Not a single company is going to put out their own money to give us a game out of charity. Their sponsors would not accept that.



In order to make games, there has to be profit. That's how the world, and this industry, work.

[addiction21]

jelf rs wrote...

Abriael_CG wrote...
The real difference is that Valve and CD Projekt provide very average games (with a few above average ones for Valve, but that is outweighted by their lazyness in learning to program on the PS3). Bioware has a track record of masterpieces, and DA:O is no exception.

That aside, Bioware's games always have an extremely high budget, with extensive first tier voice acting and writing that both Valve and CD Projekt can only dream of.
Such things have a cost, and costs have to be offset. It's that simple.

Umm.... I find it quite meaningless to argue with super fanboys like you......
You are like "Bioware, charge me more please!"
Good luck. I'm sure there wil be more ways for you to give money to them.
btw, could you stop using "grasping at straws" please.
I know your language teacher just taught you this idiom today and you are eager to use it.
But perhaps you should use it on yourself instead.

So I see you have run out of actual arguments and now result to insults. Good luck with that.

[Abriael_CG]

jelf rs wrote...
Umm.... I find it quite meaningless to argue with super fanboys like you......
You are like "Bioware, charge me more please!"
Good luck. I'm sure there wil be more ways for you to give money to them.
btw, could you stop using "grasping at straws" please.
I know your language teacher just taught you this idiom today and you are eager to use it.
But perhaps you should use it on yourself instead.

Oh don't worry about my language teacher, when you'll speak my language as well as I speak english you'll have something to be proud of

'til then, maybe you should realize that there's a big difference between being "fanboys" and giving credit where it's due. You seem to be unable to do the latter.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 13 janvier 2010 - 04:55 .

[Andat]

Most of the arguments for free DLC that I'm seeing are based on the concept that the content should have been included with the original game, but there's little to back that up since it assumes the game is broken or incomplete without that content.



Can anyone show conclusively that the game is broken without the paid-for DLC? That if the paid-for DLC didn't exist at all (as in it was never developed in the first place) the game experience would be reduced to a point where the original game wasn't worth the asking price? Of course, what they could do is up the price by £10 and make DLC free...



Personally, I like free stuff. If Bioware want to make free DLC available, I'll applaud them for it with a shout of "Hurrah! Free stuff!" and a big grin on my face. But if they don't, I'll decide based on what I know of the product (whether that is DLC or whatever) whether I want to pay the asking price.

[DoctorPringles]

We already got free stuff. Assuming you paid the full price for the game and didn't bum it off of someone else, you got several DLC's for free. I enjoy Stone Prisoner and Blood Dragon Armor (which is pretty sexy), and I can't wait to use the Dragon Armor in ME2 either. I appreciate that I was given these DLC's just for buying something I would have been more than happy with by itself. Dragon Age is more than an adequate game, especially when compared to many other games coming out these days. Neither Oblivion or Fallout 3 had the quality of gameplay and story that this game has, even without Shale and a suit of armor. That those two games got game of the year speaks alot about the awards Dragon Age is deserving of.

(By the way, to the poster above me, this wasn't directed at you, but at the whole of the "free stuff" supporters. Just to prevent confusion.)

Modifié par DoctorPringles, 13 janvier 2010 - 05:03 .

[Andat]

DoctorPringles wrote...
(By the way, to the poster above me, this wasn't directed at you, but at the whole of the "free stuff" supporters. Just to prevent confusion.)

Yeah I guessed that from the rest of the post.  Of course, a game's DLC doesn't have to be exclusively free or paid-for, but a mix depending on how the publisher want's to distribute it.

[MerinTB]

DoctorPringles wrote...

The reason games like diablo and starcraft have free servers is because it requires very little oversight to run. In an MMO, there has to be constant tracking of cheaters, glitches, player issues brought up in-game, and there are updates almost daily fixing small things here and there, as well as weekly or monthly updates adding new content.

This is nitpicking here, and I tend to agree that MMO servers must require exponentially more resources than servers for other kinds of multi-player -
but that said, games like Starcraft or Counterstrike DO have to maintain support to deal with glitches, with cheats and hacks, etc.  Multi-player games are highly competitive and too many people look to cheat, and like viruses, people are always finding new ways to cheat and therefore the software and servers need to be adjusted constantly.
That requires people working on it.  And while a few people compared to dozens of people may be less resources, those few maintaining those servers and doing the monitoring and such still need to be paid.  Starcraft, again sticking with one example, did release an expansion but outside of that there's no additional revenue streams while Battlenet has been maintained for YEARS past even that expansion.  Blizzard needs to have the money to upkeep that, and as such there must be some worth beyond goodwill that the business gets from maintaining said servers and monitoring and such.

Anything you get "for free" from a business has been calculated to give that company profits somewhere down the road at least.  That isn't evil, that's smart.

[Mirolsen]

Abriael_CG wrote...

The difference is that the witcher is a slightly above average game that desperately needed that improvement to stand  out. DA:O  is the best western RPG of the last few years, to witch The Witcher doesn't hold a candle.

The funiest think i ever heard. U can't compare 2 different games >< It's like compare Gothic with baldur's gate.
Those 3 DLC were part of vanila game. Tell me why Return to Ostagar pirate version is relese before offical release with FULL Dubbing for all languages. DA:O were best in 2009 for sure,  was alot fun playing this game. But those many bugs, gliches and unbalance i saw only in Gothic 3 ... (im afraid about SW:TOR). Bioware shoul relese patches not more and more DLC

Modifié par Mirolsen, 13 janvier 2010 - 05:27 .

[Xeper84]

no i understand him completely there can be no arguments when people are trying to argue with personal values of a game.

For me DA:O is a very good RPG but @ no point i would say it has higher quality than any other modern RPG.

NWN 2 had the same stuff to offer and i couldn't say it's less worth.

A higher budget does not result in a better product.



btw Drakensang 2 looks amazing

[DoctorPringles]

MerinTB wrote...

DoctorPringles wrote...

The
reason games like diablo and starcraft have free servers is because it
requires very little oversight to run. In an MMO, there has to be
constant tracking of cheaters, glitches, player issues brought up
in-game, and there are updates almost daily fixing small things here
and there, as well as weekly or monthly updates adding new content.

This is nitpicking here, and I tend to agree that MMO
servers must require exponentially more resources than servers for
other kinds of multi-player -
but that said, games like Starcraft or
Counterstrike DO have to maintain support to deal with glitches, with
cheats and hacks, etc.  Multi-player games are highly competitive and
too many people look to cheat, and like viruses, people are always
finding new ways to cheat and therefore the software and servers need
to be adjusted constantly.
That requires people working on it.  And
while a few people compared to dozens of people may be less resources,
those few maintaining those servers and doing the monitoring and such
still need to be paid.  Starcraft, again sticking with one example, did
release an expansion but outside of that there's no additional revenue
streams while Battlenet has been maintained for YEARS past even that
expansion.  Blizzard needs to have the money to upkeep that, and as
such there must be some worth beyond goodwill that the business gets
from maintaining said servers and monitoring and such.

Anything
you get "for free" from a business has been calculated to give that
company profits somewhere down the road at least.  That isn't evil,
that's smart.

Exactly, and I wasn't attempting to imply that those companies are "evil". I'm aware that some companies will do things out of the goodness of their hearts, but giving away content that takes several months to develop isn't normally one of those things. As I said, the company has to make a profit, otherwise there will be no money left for future games. Support for older games like Counterstrike is kind, yes, but there's an underlying level of financial security there. As you said, they calculate what will give them profit, and their continued support for games like Starcraft and Diablo help to promote future versions or sequels of those games. By maintaining those servers, they allow us to keep those games fresh in our minds and, as such, make us want to purchase their sequels, like Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, both supposedly coming sometime this year. But a company like Bioware doesn't have games like that, nor do they have a massive MMO like wow feeding them money. As such, they must charge us for at least some of their content.

Modifié par DoctorPringles, 13 janvier 2010 - 05:24 .

[MerinTB]

DoctorPringles wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

DoctorPringles wrote...

The
reason games like diablo and starcraft have free servers is because it
requires very little oversight to run. In an MMO, there has to be
constant tracking of cheaters, glitches, player issues brought up
in-game, and there are updates almost daily fixing small things here
and there, as well as weekly or monthly updates adding new content.

This is nitpicking here, and I tend to agree that MMO
servers must require exponentially more resources than servers for
other kinds of multi-player -
but that said, games like Starcraft or
Counterstrike DO have to maintain support to deal with glitches, with
cheats and hacks, etc.  Multi-player games are highly competitive and
too many people look to cheat, and like viruses, people are always
finding new ways to cheat and therefore the software and servers need
to be adjusted constantly.
That requires people working on it.  And
while a few people compared to dozens of people may be less resources,
those few maintaining those servers and doing the monitoring and such
still need to be paid.  Starcraft, again sticking with one example, did
release an expansion but outside of that there's no additional revenue
streams while Battlenet has been maintained for YEARS past even that
expansion.  Blizzard needs to have the money to upkeep that, and as
such there must be some worth beyond goodwill that the business gets
from maintaining said servers and monitoring and such.

Anything
you get "for free" from a business has been calculated to give that
company profits somewhere down the road at least.  That isn't evil,
that's smart.

Exactly, and I wasn't attempting to imply that those companies are "evil". I'm aware that some companies will do things out of the goodness of their hearts, but giving away content that takes several months to develop isn't normally one of those things. As I said, the company has to make a profit, otherwise there will be no money left for future games. Support for older games like Counterstrike is kind, yes, but there's an underlying level of financial security there. As you said, they calculate what will give them profit, and their continued support for games like Starcraft and Diablo help to promote future versions or sequels of those games. By maintaining those servers, they allow us to keep those games fresh in our minds and, as such, make us want to purchase their sequels, like Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, both supposedly coming sometime this year. But a company like Bioware doesn't have games like that, nor do they have a massive MMO like wow feeding them money. As such, they must charge us for at least some of their content.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were saying they were evil, either, I just was on my soapbox.

Maintaining servers for Starcraft can also be a way to have the resources in place and tested and maintained for when they add Starcraft 2 multiplayer to said existing service.  It's long-term thinking instead of short term "shut down support after a few years, oops now we need to redevelop said resources and fan-base."

[Abriael_CG]

Xeper84 wrote...

no i understand him completely there can be no arguments when people are trying to argue with personal values of a game.
For me DA:O is a very good RPG but @ no point i would say it has higher quality than any other modern RPG.
NWN 2 had the same stuff to offer and i couldn't say it's less worth.
A higher budget does not result in a better product.

btw Drakensang 2 looks amazing

Unfortunately budget IS a factor in quality. Drakensang 2 looks amazing and Drakensang was great fun. Though, there were several parts in Drakensang in which you could easily see where the low budget hurt developement, crafting was one, and the abrupt finale with little closure shows easily that they simply ran out of money. Same with the many, many bugs the game was plagued by (DA:O is very polished in comparison). Also, there were very very few side quests and the dialogue was scarce.
While Budget isn't the ONLY factor to quality, it helps a lot. It gives you more resources for polish, it lets you dedicate more personnel to create side content, it lets you get better actors for voice overs, it lets you include more dialogue and backstory.
Drakensang is exactly the prime example on how lack of budget can make a game lack that extra omph that would turn it into an exceptional one. I'm quite afraid that Drakensang 2 will have the same problem. It'd be a pity, because I love the Dark Eye setting.

[Xeper84]

wrong! Budget can(!) be a factor for quality and it certainly should be. But in reality it's really rare that you can define the quality of a game when you look @ the budget it used.

Drakensang and bugs? I agree that the cut down voice acting was bad but i had a lot of more bugs in DA:O. But on the other hand it's hard to believe that DA:O had a so much higher budget when you walk around in a city in both titels.

DA:O stale and lifeless citys

Drakensang: walking people talking with each other and stuff like that.

It's always what it is worth for you.

[Abriael_CG]

Xeper84 wrote...

wrong! Budget can(!) be a factor for quality and it certainly should be. But in reality it's really rare that you can define the quality of a game when you look @ the budget it used.
Drakensang and bugs? I agree that the cut down voice acting was bad but i had a lot of more bugs in DA:O. But on the other hand it's hard to believe that DA:O had a so much higher budget when you walk around in a city in both titels.
DA:O stale and lifeless citys
Drakensang: walking people talking with each other and stuff like that.
It's always what it is worth for you.

you must have not played the very first version of drakensang, there were several game breaking bugs that'd make any bug in DA:O pale.
Maybe people had a few exchanges with each other in Drakensang (which got old pretty fast), but the companions were some of the most lifeless i ever seen in an RPG. No romance, no real interaction with them besides their quest. So in the end you got a few more background elements that aren't really a  budget matter, but the key elements were often lacking.
It was a good game, but it had some pretty big flaws that a bigger budget would have solved.

[Bibdy]

Why do people keep bringing up Starcraft and Diablo 2 as well supported games today? Neither has had a patch in like 5 years.

[Xeper84]

bibdy wrong both titels had patches the last months

@ drakensang I really played it on release here in germany and i had not a single bug.
That is all i can say because i was not watching a forum or something because i had no problems ;-)

Modifié par Xeper84, 13 janvier 2010 - 06:06 .

[Bibdy]

Huh, so they have. Looks like Diablo has some kind of public beta test going on last month (1.13), which FINALLY introduces a respec to the game, though Starcraft only had a minor patch about a year ago (1.16.1).

[Statisfaction]

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.

It's like the OP's never heard of an economy before... you think you could program and voice shale for less than $15?  If releasing a toolkit isn't commitment and dedication to the community, then what else do you want?  They've already given you the means to create your own content that not only denies them your money, but the money of anybody that downloads it.  If you don't want any more of their stuff, don't buy it.  But don't go on about how it should be free, because it shouldn't be.  Maybe the rest of us live in a different world than you, but in our world, we pay for stuff.  That money goes to the people who make the stuff.  Those people, because they get paid, make more stuff.  This isn't Dragon Age: Allistar's Charitable Donation, it's Dragon Age: Cash Cow.  Or maybe even just Dragon Age: People don't work for free.

[Xeper84]

"... you think you could program and voice shale for less than $15? "
Of course that seems to be impossible if you think about the other 2 chars in origins ^^

And the money you spend goes to EA not Bioware (who made the stuff)

Modifié par Xeper84, 13 janvier 2010 - 06:35 .

[addiction21]

Xeper84 wrote...

"... you think you could program and voice shale for less than $15? "
Of course that seems to be impossible if you think about the other 2 chars in origins ^^

And the money you spend goes to EA not Bioware (who made the stuff)

Which means what exactly? EA is not paying the people at BW?