945 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMadCat]

traversc wrote...

My grudge is 1) that people think they are actually getting their money's worth, when it is quite clear with simple analysis that they are not.  This affects me, because it will unnaturally drive up the price of content.  As a lowly research assistant, I'm not rolling in money, I don't know about you.  (Maybe I don't have enough investment in bank of daddy, huh?)

The true value of money is subjective to every individual. There is a number tied to it but the importance and impact of that number vaires per individual. $5 to me may not be what $5 is to you. You also say it will unnaturally drive up the price of the content. How is that unnatural? It's one of the two most basic principles in business, demand.

2) I haven't played any BW game since KOTOR, but I always thought BW was above money-driven market rational evilness.  I was wrong.  

At the end of the day they are a company. They don't want your friendship, they don't want your affection, they don't want your appreciation, they want your money. Companies NEED new ways of revenue due to the size of money pumped into AAA games these days. Why do you think they decided to make it multiplatform after years of saying it's a PC exclusive? Would you be willing to pay $70 or $80 for a new PC game and have cheaper or no DLC?

Take MW2 with it's $60/$70 tag. It's not like that because they've gotten extra greedy all of a sudden; hell they've been one of the nastiest companies for awhile now, it's like that because Activision just poured $200m into that game. Companies need to recoup not just the money put into the game, but also to pay overhead and then still come out with a certain percentage of profits. To these companies DLC such as this are the way to recoup losses without the need to raise prices of the base game. In their eyes, and they're right on this, it alienates less fans at the end of the day.

This DLC style is done out of necceasity more then greed. The consumer always wants more for less but from their ends it isn't possible to comply with that view. You may not feel the product itself is worth the cost, that's an opinion and you are entilted to it without any disagreement. But don't sit here and proclaim it's done purely for evilness and greed.

[Mordaedil]

traversc wrote...

You are mixing up terms.  People are irrational.  The outcome is rational.  And that is the point, really.  BW realizes that people will buy lower quality products at higher prices - so they produce DLCs.  That is the rational outcome.

Well, you are also mixing up terms, so I figure it's fair game. First of all, "lower quality products" can mean so many things. From an LCD screen that looks beautiful when you look at it, but has an expected life-time of surviving just past warranty, to the old stable VHS recorder that you bought in the late 70's, which still works today, but can't play new media such as DVD's or blurays.

I assume you are comparing the price of the content you get from DLC to the price that the game had. But if you think about it, that's not just horribly wrong, but ultimately shallow on your own part.

Now, jokingly people suggest that maybe Dragon Age should have cost $120 considering how short Modern Warfare 2 was and how highly priced that was, at the limited development time. But maybe they are right, considering Dragon Age was in production for 7 years and their programmers weren't eating crumbs off the floor for the last three years, considering, it wasn't for free that it was made. But can you imagine the sheer OUTRAGE people would have if it cost any more than every other game that came out last year?

People have a sense of economics which is pretty screwed up, but so does everyone else, inside and outside the business. Attaching "worth" to product simply has to boil down to the very basic "what are people willing to give?"

There just is no other basis of worth.

Unless you really want to put another arbitrary price tag on games, but really, don't.

Progress is scary, but it's necessary for a reason.

traversc wrote...

My grudge is 1) that people think they are actually getting their money's worth, when it is quite clear with simple analysis that they are not.  This affects me, because it will unnaturally drive up the price of content.  As a lowly research assistant, I'm not rolling in money, I don't know about you.  (Maybe I don't have enough investment in bank of daddy, huh?)

What is this simple analysis you employ? Time spent? Modern Warfare 2 was the best-selling game last year and was maybe 6 hours long, that's one hour per 10 dollar.

FROM THE BEST GAME OF LAST YEAR!

Also, I take it was a veiled insult of sorts, but as I find myself without a job in a couple of months because my 2-year contract is running out, not a particularly funny one. I just don't do drugs or smoke and I can afford games and DLC just fine. Maybe you just need to refine your budget a bit? Cut down on the weed, maybe?

traversc wrote...

2) I haven't played any BW game since KOTOR, but I always thought BW was above money-driven market rational evilness.  I was wrong. 

And yet, less so than other companies. But no. Even back with Neverwinter Nights, Bioware released Premium Modules that were basically the same as this, but after a few years with just expansions. Short, one-hour adventures that cost between 5-10 dollars and provided variable amounts of replayability and fun.

With KotOR they were not allowed and Jade Empire was console only and didn't have the ability to support DLC in this form.

Mass Effect was their first try on a multi-platform type of release, which... Was a success and a failure. People certainly expected more.

[ladydesire]

traversc wrote...

Mordaedil wrote...

traversc wrote...

edit: for post below

Your argument, weighed against the majority of people in the world,
finds the DLC appropriately prices and worth buyingor at least they
justify to themselves that buying it is fine.

Again, just because people think a product is valued as X, does not mean its value is X.  People are irrational. 

People drive the market. There is nothing irrational about that.

You are mixing up terms.  People are irrational.  The outcome is rational.  And that is the point, really.  BW realizes that people will buy lower quality products at higher prices - so they produce DLCs.  That is the rational outcome.

How do you define quality, though? Is it measured by the length of time something takes for someone to play through it, or is it something that is different for different people?

My grudge is 1) that people think they are actually getting their money's worth, when it is quite clear with simple analysis that they are not.  This affects me, because it will unnaturally drive up the price of content.  As a lowly research assistant, I'm not rolling in money, I don't know about you.  (Maybe I don't have enough investment in bank of daddy, huh?)

Your analsys is based on what? Your definition of quality? Maybe something like Return to Ostagar isn't worth $5US to you, but who are you to tell others that it's not worth that to them?

2) I haven't played any BW game since KOTOR, but I always thought BW was above money-driven market rational evilness.  I was wrong.  

That they aren't selling an armor pack for $5US tells me that they aren't making DLC strictly for the money; it tells me that they want to expand on the world they have created, and not be limited to doing these things in expansions to the main game, which is what would happen if they weren't making DLC. I know that you're ignoring the codex entries that are added by the various pieces of DLC, but those are as valid a benefit to players as anything else.

[Parker Kincaid]

traversc wrote...

My grudge is 1) that people think they are actually getting their money's worth, when it is quite clear with simple analysis that they are not.  This affects me, because it will unnaturally drive up the price of content.

This is an opinion. Your view is subjective and while it may be your belief that doesn't make it reality for everyone and doesn't make everyone else wrong when they do, in fact, believe that the content is worth the money so all the thinking you may do on this doesn't mean that it is: (1) an actual and verifiable fact or that (2) myself and others are wrong in believing money is worth spending.

traversc wrote...

As a lowly research assistant, I'm not rolling in money, I don't know about you.  (Maybe I don't have enough investment in bank of daddy, huh?)

I suspect most people are not rolling in money. I'm most definitely not although it would be lovely if I was. I have a certain amount of money each month that I consider "play money" for games, entertainment, etc. I plan out many of my expenditures months in advance if and when I can. In my case I went and canceled something [unrelated to DA:O] that I have wanted for some time now because I decided that donating to multiple Hatian Relief Funds was a more worthy thing to do than spending on something merely for my enjoyment. I'm not saying this to portray me as a saint, viewed as being special, or to pat myself on the back.. I simply felt that it was the right thing to do and I can always get what I had originally planned on spending the money on at a later time. This is something unplanned and it disrupted my previously well planned spending schedule. I'll live.

My point in this entire post is that worth and value are subjective. Your opinion is exactly what it is. It's an opinion. If you feel it's over-priced then you are free to believe it but myself and others will disagree and that doesn't make us wrong. It also doesn't necessarily make you wrong. The real wrongness in threads like this is when people make a decision which is an opinion and consider it the only right way to view the situation and that all other opinions are simply wrong.You will, also, have people who do agree with your views. Maybe at a later time you'll be able to obtain the DLC/expansions at a lower cost if you feel the cost is too high. So, either don't get them right when they are releases or don't spend the money at all. That's up to you. All us people who aren't rolling in money and don't have money trees growing in our yards, courtyards, parks, etc,  have to prioritize what we spend money on and when we can spend it. Some people won't prioritize and, well, that's on them. Purchasing decisions and value are different for different people

I had a number of things I've been slowly saving up money to get and was really close to finally having enough set aside. My fleeting personal enjoyment from material things isn't more valuable than helping other human beings or animals for that matter. I've kept my money set aside for RtO, Awakening, and ME2 but I've canceled other things. Oh well. That's life and I'll gladly, willingly, and happily do without. I'm not expecting other people to do the same as I have. I'm simply offering this as a counterpoint to your statements.

Some will, of course say how people only react to a crisis with donations in a time of need and ignore the problems when time has passed. I donate to charities be it to help people and  animals every year. It's the right thing to do, in my opinion. It may amounts that make me worthy of sainthood but I donate what I can and hope I am in some small way making the world better.

traversc wrote

...2) I haven't played any BW game since KOTOR, but I always thought BW was above money-driven market rational evilness.  I was wrong.

... and this is an opinion.

I own Fallout 3. Quite frankly, I found it a disappointment. I didn't purchase any of the DLC for it and never will. This is the first time that I have posted this anywhere. I simply didn't enjoy the game and didn't feel paying for the DLC was worth it especially if I was never going to even play it. That is merely my opinion which doesn't mean that the game wasn't enjoyable to others and that they shouldn't get the DLC.

When threads/discussions like this occur online or in real life it seems that people subjective views and opinions rapidly turn into facts where all other views are somehow wrong. Opinions can and do vary. All opinions have value. The way in which the opinions are framed can and does impact how other people will react, as well.  I absolutely disagree that DLC should be free but I do accept some people believing that it should be even when I think they are... just wrong. One person's subjective opinion on this matter shouldn't mean that a company like BioWare simply releases no extra content for a game such as DA:O simply because a cost analysis shows it simply has no positive value. BioWare is a business and not a non-profit.

I'm not meaning to personally attack and you aren't the only person with your viewpoint. I felt it was time to make a reply and your post was a good one to reply to in order to make my points. So, I'm not attacking you or people who agree with you. I'm simply looking at things from a differing perspective than yours.

Lastly, my point in mentioning donations wasn't to completely sidetrack this discussion or make myself look good in the eyes of other people. I was merely showing how we can't always plan ahead and how sometimes we can't get everything we want. Sometimes we just can't and that's life.

Note: I'm sure this post contains typos and badly constructed sentences. I edited it many times before finally submitting and it's very likely I missed some corrections and added in new sentences without fixing the structure and completing my thoughts.

Modifié par Parker Kincaid, 16 janvier 2010 - 09:52 .

[addiction21]

Parker Kincaid wrote...


Note: I'm sure this post contains typos and badly constructed sentences. I edited it many times before finally submitting and it's very likely I missed some corrections and added in new sentences without fixing the structure and completing my thoughts.

Who cares? No malice here, but if that is what they focus on they do not deserve to be replied to. If that is what they bring up it shows they have no actual arguments or counter points to argue.
Well said tho.

Modifié par addiction21, 16 janvier 2010 - 10:56 .

[traversc]

There is a number tied to it but the importance and impact of that number vaires per individual. $5 to me may not be what $5 is to you. You also say it will unnaturally drive up the price of the content. How is that unnatural? It's one of the two most basic principles in business, demand.

You're assuming I'm tying any importance to money.  I'm not, nor do I need to, because I am looking at relative value. 
Also, by unnatural, I simply meant that the game price was not at its "natural" (e.g. actual) value.  please don't play the semantics game. 

At the end of the day they are a company. They don't want your friendship, they don't want your affection, they don't want your appreciation, they want your money. Companies NEED new ways of revenue due to the size of money pumped into AAA games these days. Why do you think they decided to make it multiplatform after years of saying it's a PC exclusive? Would you be willing to pay $70 or $80 for a new PC game and have cheaper or no DLC?

What you have is a contradiction.  You are saying that DLCs are simply a means of recuperating the cost from producing DA:O.  Either DLCs are worth their weight or they are not. 

I assume you are comparing the price of the content you get from DLC to the price that the game had. But if you think about it, that's not just horribly wrong, but ultimately shallow on your own part.

You don't have to assume, since I stated this was what I was doing multiple times.  If it is shallow, how so? 

Your analsys is based on what? Your definition of quality?

My analysis is based on what I wrote several pages ago. 

That they aren't selling an armor pack for $5US tells me that they aren't making DLC strictly for the money; it tells me that they want to expand on the world they have created, and not be limited to doing these things in expansions to the main game, which is what would happen if they weren't making DLC.

Strange, that's not what it is telling me.  It's telling me their using Blood Dragon as a marketing ploy to get people to buy more of their stuff. 

This is an opinion. Your view is subjective and while it may be your belief that doesn't make it reality for everyone and doesn't make everyone else wrong when they do

My belief is based on the fact that DLCs have objectively far less content at a higher price than DA:O.  This is based on the assumption that the quality of gameplay in RtO is similar to DA:O.  This is a quite common technique used in science all the time.  You find an objective measure, and you compare relative values to get an idea of some other value.  It doesn't matter if the measure isn't completely accurate when the difference is orders of magnitude apart, because the sampling variation will never be large enough to explain the difference.  You'd need huge amounts of "froth" value to claim that DLCs are worth their price.

Modifié par traversc, 16 janvier 2010 - 10:57 .

[MerinTB]

traversc wrote...

Merin Wrote...
I did say that to some people completeing all possible achievements or having tried every possible choice in the game is content, extra game-time they enjoy spending. Because you (and, to be honest, I as well) consider it not of value does not eliminate as a measure. Who are you to declare what does and does not count as valid? Do you have access to some secret authoritative text?

I am not stating my opinion as fact. Completionism is not a measure of content. As I said earlier, you can say that it is a measure of value, but then it is subjective and not a reliable measure.

Wht measurement of value is NOT subjective?  List one that you believe to be not subjective, and I will almost certainly find you someone on the forums who will tell you that, to them, that measurement is not important.  Value of an item IS subjective, and what you chose to consider as a benefit or not is why.

I am not going to give you any more benefit of the doubt at this point.  You are completely changing your arguments, shifting them everytime part of your argument is shot down.  You are moving the goal posts.

The "completionist" argument, from you, started HERE -

traversc INITIALLY wrote...
 30 minutes of gameplay is not worth $5 period.  There's just no justification and they are preying on players addiction and completionism in getting all the pretty new shiny weapons and armor.

to which I responded

MerinTB responded...
What your perceived benefits from a game are might not be benefits to another player.  You dismiss items(...)as well as completionism, but for some players there is more value in those two things than in hours of gameplay.

And then you go up to what I underlined above, where I define how completionism can be considered extra content in the sense that for some players going back over all decisions and taking all courses, filling out all achievements, etc., IS game content as it is stuff they do and enjoy in the game AND it is stuff that was intentionally built into the game (achievements and choices with all their outcomes) so it isn't just someone making up stuff to do in the game.
But you, out of hand, dismiss it as not content.  I can only assume because it isn't content to you.  You continue to dismiss many things as content, even when forced to back pedal (a.k.a. moving the goal posts.)

Another example, let's take your statement here:

traversc wrote...
Price per hour was never mentioned, and so I'm not sure what reason you have to bring that up other than to be disingenuous.

Insinuating that you never brought up dollars for time as a measurement of quality, and that I was setting up a straw man - I was arguing against a position you never posited.
But I'll requote you from eariler -

traversc initially wrote...
30 minutes of gameplay is not worth $5 period.  There's just no justification and they are preying on players addiction and completionism

where you posited the position that time for money (30 minutes for $5) is why you consider the DLC not worth it.  That is a price per hour argument, exactly what you say was never brought up (and I have to assume you meant not brought up by you as it was REPEATEDLY brought up through the thread as I responded to you initially.)

Last example of you moving the goal posts - what counts as content.
You start here:

traversc initially wrote...
It's just sad that so many fanboys are hurting the rest of us by enabling Bioware in this shameless money grab known as DLC.  They should be working on actual content.  And no, lots of shiny new items != content.

and then when asked if you considered the Awakening expansion content you responded with a slight shift -

traversc then wrote...
Maybe, maybe not. I'll wait until I see it. But that is quite besides the point.
Point is, they are spending much of their resources on production rather than content development. Ostensibly, if they didn't spend so much of their time on DLCs, then ostensibly, they could give us better content in
less amount of time.

and then you moved the goal posts further here-

traversc then wrote...
That is not what I argued, and I'm sorry if what I wrote "seems" that way. Of course DLCs have content, but I argued that they have very little content. I also never stated that DLCs would prevent BW from
releasing expansions.

Let's follow the underlined to the bold to the bolded underlined.
DLC is not content because Bioware is doing DLC and not actual content, of which items are not content anyway.  Bioware must not be working on new content because you say they should be working on actual content which implies they are not working on actual content.
Whether the expansion that Bioware is working on is content or not you have not decided because you have not experienced it (huh, you haven't experience any Bioware games since Kotor, right, so... wait?) but whether or not the expansion that they are working on is content or not is beside your point, which is that since Bioware is wasting time on DLCs they are not giving us BETTER content.
DLC of course has content just not a lot.  You were always saying that.  you never said that working on DLC would prevent Bioware from releasing expansions - which you still haven't decided if they are content or not, but probably not because then it would be the content that working on the DLCs was preventing or...

From DLC is not content that distracts from making ANY content as Bioware isn't making content but should to DLC distracts from giving BETTER content as Bioware may or may not be making content at the same time with it's expansion but I've not decided if that is content to DLC has content but only a little and that was what I was always saying because I never said that DLC takes away from Bioware making expansions which may or may not be content.

If you cannot admit that the argument there has shifted over time, then you, sir, are the one who deserves the label you tried to apply to me - that of being disingenuous.

Modifié par MerinTB, 16 janvier 2010 - 11:18 .

[addiction21]

traversc wrote...
Assumption, assumption, guesswork, opnion, opnion, flimsy illogical statement base on opnion, assumption, move the goal posts another 50 feet, opnion, NO U, assumption, guess, guess, guess.

Throw in a smattering of logical fallacies and wrap it all up with poor reading comprehension and you would be tossed out of any serious debate.

Now if you wonder why I did not choose to write out a long ass essay like the others. It is because there is no point. You will continue to change your arguements or say "no thats not what I ment this is what I ment"

You "what color is that soccor ball"?
Me "black and white but they are not really colors per se."
You "no I ment how much it weighs"
Me "well I need a scale"
You "just guess"
Me "well I guess 3 pounds"
You "No I assume it is 5 pounds so you are wrong"
Me "how do you know that is right?"
You "It is my opnion it is 5 pounds so you are still wrong"
Me "but that is just a opnion it is not fact"
You "No I ment that I thought it was 5 pounds and you still are wrong"
Me "but how do you know"
You "it is my opnion so you are wrong"
Me "but"
You "what color is it?"
Me "**** you"
You "I WIN!!!"

Modifié par addiction21, 16 janvier 2010 - 11:16 .

[TheMadCat]

You're assuming I'm tying any importance to money.  I'm not, nor do I need to, because I am looking at relative value. 

So wait, you're discussing the value of something, discussing weather the product is worth the price listed, and you're not tying any importance to money. So if money is of no importance, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ARUGING.

What you have is a contradiction.  You
are saying that DLCs are simply a means of recuperating the cost from
producing DA:O.  Either DLCs are worth their weight or they are not.

If I was arguing for the consumer with that statement you'd be right. What I did was argue your statement that Bioware has become an evil corporation who cares about nothing other then milking their fanbase.

I like what addiction21 said, you're arguing for the sake of arguing in a desperate attempt to get everyone to break down and give up, you're arguments have changed a dozen times over the course of this thread. I'll make sure to toss him a waffle later.

[David Gaider]

It would probably be much easier just to say



"DLC BAD. NOT WANT. NOT WANT ANYONE TO WANT."



wouldn't it?

[Sloth Of Doom]

David Gaider wrote...

It would probably be much easier just to say

"DLC BAD. NOT WANT. NOT WANT ANYONE TO WANT."

wouldn't it?

Beer->nose->keyboard.

GAIDER SMASH!

[darkshadow136]

David Gaider wrote...

It would probably be much easier just to say

"DLC BAD. NOT WANT. NOT WANT ANYONE TO WANT."

wouldn't it?

ROFL, DLC attack Hulk, hurt Hulk with bugs, Hulk smash.......

[addiction21]

Short of Tigol going on a drunken rampage that is the greatest response from a company rep EVAH!!!!

Yes I do consider you a represenitive of BW and no I would not be upset if I was burned like that. I would just go get some aloa while slowly clapping.

[MerinTB]

[quote]traversc wrote...
[quote] ....If this is your new argument...
...Ok, so I cannot compare DLC to DLC - because of why?... [/quote]
[/quote]

Ok, you did it here again.  They are sequential this time, but they are not connected.  Why did you put those two snippits together?  What exactly connects them?  This is extremely poor composition, and I cannot even see any reason you see them as connected or even important together.

[quote]traversc wrote...
Nothing I have stated is a new argument by any means. I have simply been repeating what I have said in the first 2-3 posts. [/quote]

My previous response to you shows exactly the shifting of your various arguments.  I won't repeat it here this time.  But it's there with bolds and underlines and such.

[quote]traversc wrote...
You CAN of course, compare DLC to DLC. You can even say that RtO is more valuable compared to other DLCs. That is your perogative. But then of course, you will become irrelevant to the discussion. [/quote]

Irrelevant to the discussion?  Why, because again your unstated major premise is that DLC is bad and therefore no arguments or evidence can show they have any value, period?
Or because only you get to decide what is relevant, like you get to decide what has value, like you get to decide what is content?
Let's go back and see all the times you've told others you get to make whatever comparisons you like -
[quote]traversc wrote...
In other words, imagine that DA:O is a hotdog.[/quote]
[quote]traversc wrote...
I am not comparing DA:O and RtO to hotdogs. I am comparing the relationship between DA:O and RtO to the relationship between hotdogs of different prices. It's called an analogy.[/quote]
[quote]traversc wrote...
I can make objective observations about value, and how people  spend their money.  I don't need your permission to do it, sir. [/quote]
[quote]traversc wrote...
An analogy is a perfectly valid concept that anyone who has taken the SATs should understand. [/quote]
[quote]traversc wrote...
Yes, but when you look at two things of similar quality, you do not
need to define absolute value. You can use comparitive value, and it
just becomes a matter of amount.[/quote]
[quote]traversc wrote...
I am not interested in comparing DLCs to each other because the problem is ALL DLCs, of which, RtO is just the latest example. [/quote]
You repeatedly tell people you will use what comparisons you like, that they matter, even if it is a hot dog to a piece of add-on software, and then you tell me I will become irrelevant because I compare like items?

This makes me break out the ad hominem I've been fighting for many posts from using -
[quote]traversc wrote...
people are not rational actors[/quote]
[quote]traversc wrote...
People who are acting irrationally[/quote]
[quote]traversc wrote...
people are not rational actors[/quote]
[quote]traversc wrote...
People are irrational.  [/quote]
I wonder if there is something Freudian going on here.  You keep bringing this up.  Is there something about yourself you are not comfortable with?

That should be beneath me and yet you keep calling people irrational when all I can see is that your arguments are irrational.

Seriously, is it rational to say this -
[quote]traversc wrote...
Please Bioware, I beg you.  Listen to your REAL fans.  Stop this madness.  You KNOW it is wrong.  [/quote]
and this
[quote]traversc wrote...
[quote]you don't consider the awakening expansion as content?[/quote]
Maybe, maybe not. I'll wait until I see it.[/quote]
when you then say this -
[quote]I haven't played any BW game since KOTOR[/quote]
You are a "true fan" they should listen to, someone who hasn't bought one of their games in like 6 years (or bought Kotor for a discount if it was more recent)?
You are a "true fan", passing judgment on Bioware's DLC and upcoming DLC, talking about it's worth and value, when it seems pretty clear that you don't buy Bioware games anymore so you were not buying their stuff for over a half-decade but they should cater their development and marketing decisions to you?
You will "wait and see" on the Awakening expansion, when you haven't played Dragon Age itself?  What are you waiting on - the reviews of OTHERS?  How objective of you - passing judgment on products you never try, decrying the value of games and people's enjoyment of them when you, yourself, dismiss them without playing them.

I don't think this is very rational behavior.

Modifié par MerinTB, 17 janvier 2010 - 12:05 .

[tmelange]

I don't understand the necessity of this argument. If a company makes a product available for sale, people will either buy it or not. If consumers do not buy the item, and the company does not recoup its costs, the company will inevitably decide not to produce the product. If people buy the product, however, the market self adjusts as to price. If it were true that "DLC should be free" you wouldn't have to state it, or argue it, or really defend the proposition at all. If the DLC should be free, it would be free. It's called capitalism.



For the record, I would NOT want DLC to be free. I want gaming companies to make enough money so that I can see DA:O 2 in my lifetime, while my reflexes and eyesight are still good enough to allow me some enjoyment. I'm looking forward to the day when new games have an 18 month production turnaround, and there's a job opening in the industry for every person who loves games.

[MerinTB]

David Gaider wrote...

It would probably be much easier just to say

"DLC BAD. NOT WANT. NOT WANT ANYONE TO WANT."

wouldn't it?

No!



David, you proved you are no "amateurish" writer and that I am.

You did in 9 words what I've failed to do in the first chapter of War and Peace.

[traversc]

So wait, you're discussing the value of something, discussing weather the product is worth the price listed, and you're not tying any importance to money. So if money is of no importance, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ARUGING.

Please stop yelling. I am discussing the relative value of RtO to DA:O. It is not required to assign value to money, or even discuss money at all. The concept itself is abstract and dimensionless.

It is because there is no point. You will continue to change your arguements or say "no thats not what I ment this is what I ment"

I have not changed or ammended my argument in the slightest since post #2 or 3. Continue flaming at your leisure.

I wonder if there is something Freudian going on here. You keep bringing this up. Is there something about yourself you are not comfortable with?

People not being rational is simply a fact used to model economic behavoir. It is the reason that price and value are not synonymous.

Wht measurement of value is NOT subjective? List one that you believe to be not subjective, and I will almost certainly find you someone on the forums who will tell you that, to them, that measurement is not important. Value of an item IS subjective, and what you chose to consider as a benefit or not is why.

@Merin: Wall of text. Again, please boil it down. I am not being disingenuous. My contention is with DLCs that you needed to pay for (e.g., WK, SP and RtO). Free DLCs like BDA are a non-issue, because they were free, and thus, its impossible to claim are overpriced. I should not have to make this distinction.

Objective measures are things that do not rely on perspective (e.g., remains constant across all persons measured). For example, relative time played (more or less), minutes of dialogue, disk space of campaign, etc. Subjective measures are those that do rely on perspective, such as "The nice feeling of satisfcation you get from completionism" or "the nice squishy feeling you get from burying beloved King Calian." Objective measures themselves are sampling variables used to estimate the amount of content. Quality of content is another important factor, but as stated earlier, does not matter when you compare RtO to DA:O.

Even if you were to assign subjective measures considerable importance, that is not enough to change the argument. Subjective value would have to be at least an order of magnitude greater than objective measures.

Modifié par traversc, 17 janvier 2010 - 12:07 .

[Bibdy]

Little more disappointing on the internet than making a well-written post, and the guy disagreeing with you ignores the entire thing except for a single typo. Its like winning by default. This traversc guy is just plain retarded.

[traversc]

Bibdy wrote...

Little more disappointing on the internet than making a well-written post, and the guy disagreeing with you ignores the entire thing except for a single typo. Its like winning by default. This traversc guy is just plain retarded.

Im sorry you feel that way.  If you've kept up, you'd see just the sheer magnitude of posts.  How do you expect me to respond to every single point in every single one? I try to find the most poignant sentances and boil it down.  I assure you I meant no offense. 

[Selakah]

Bibdy wrote...

Little more disappointing on the internet than making a well-written post, and the guy disagreeing with you ignores the entire thing except for a single typo. Its like winning by default. This traversc guy is just plain retarded.

http://www.cracked.c...ent-techniques/

Modifié par Selakah, 17 janvier 2010 - 12:12 .

[traversc]

"DLC BAD. NOT WANT. NOT WANT ANYONE TO WANT."

In short, yes. Now I try to explain why I feel this way.

You repeatedly tell people you will use what comparisons you like, that they matter, even if it is a hot dog to a piece of add-on software, and then you tell me I will become irrelevant because I compare like items?

Again, an analogy means you compare the relationship of two things to the relationship of another. That is the point behind the hot dog. I am not directly comparing a hotdog to RtO.

[Aslend]

David Gaider wrote...

It would probably be much easier just to say

"DLC BAD. NOT WANT. NOT WANT ANYONE TO WANT."

wouldn't it?

Freedom of choice, I believe most of us still have this? Yes? To buy or not to buy would then be the question. From the sound of all this, it is merely I want what the next door neighbors have, but think it's unfair because I can't afford it.
 OOh a hotdog, can I get mustard and relish on mine? Will this be a new vendor stand DLC? When will it come out? Is it free?

Modifié par Aslend, 17 janvier 2010 - 12:20 .

[TheMadCat]

Please stop yelling. I am discussing the relative value of RtO to
DA:O. It is not required to assign value to money, or even discuss
money at all. The concept itself is abstract and dimensionless.

Mmm, I disagree. Personally, I'd find $1 completely reasonable and would buy it myself. I don't think many people who think they are overpriced now would have qualms with a $1 price.

Yes, but when you look at two things of similar quality, you do not need to define absolute value. You can use comparitive value, and it just becomes a matter of amount.

The price of a commodity is determined by what people are willing to pay. A pure capitalist may argue that price and value are equivalent, but the assumption is perfectly rational actors, and when you refine the theory with behavoiral economics, the arugment doesn't hold

If that is the case, then it is simple mathematics to determine, objectively, the comparitive value of DLCs with respect to DA:O.  It comes out that DLCs are at least an order of magnitude more expensive than DA:O.  In other words, imagine that DA:O is a hotdog.  Most places will sell the hotdog for a reasonable price at $1.50.  Now imagine being charged $15 dollars for the hotdog.  Do you think that's reasonable?  I can't think of anywhere else that so readily gets away with this!  It is highway robbery.

A point was made earlier that DA:O was in fact worth more than $50 dollars, and that we were simply getting a really good deal with the intial game.  I agree.  But the argument to that effect is marginal, even if DA:O were worth several hundred dollars.  It still doesn't change the fact that the price of DLCs are several times more expensive than they should be.

Using the idea of comparitive value, you'd need to believe that the actual value of DA:O is really around $600-700 for DLCs to be worth $5. Isomorphically, if you somehow managed to beat the game in 6 hours and still require 30 minutes to beat RtO, then yes, RtO is reasonably priced. If neither of those conditions are met, then DLCs are determinably overpriced. That so many of you people a buying into these DLCs is not only a disservice to other gamers, but to yourselves as well, as Bioware, a rational actor, will focus on churning and milking the DLC cow rather than putting their focus on developing content.

That's a few comments from various posts of yours. I don't understand what you are trying to prove. You have constantly been bringing up monetary value, all of a sudden it's of no importance? Essentially you are saying even if RtO is free it would be a bad value based on it's length and content within compared to DA:O because the money is not an important aspect is determining the value of a product. I'm trying to wrap my head around it but it's just complete stupidity and makes zero sense.

[MerinTB]

traversc wrote...
I am discussing the relative value of RtO to DA:O. It is not required to assign value to money, or even discuss money at all. The concept itself is abstract and dimensionless.

I'll make this easy for you - no one but you in these entire thread seems to care about your "moneyless" measure of value.
Your argument based on some theoretical, objective, without-price measure of value is of no interest to the OP (DLC should be free) or to those of us trying to discuss the value (as a business term, as I pointed out to you repeatedly, of value equals perceived benefits over perceived cost.)

:police:Anyone other than traversc - do you CARE about his abitrary definition of value?  Is it of any importance to you?

Anyone?  Seriously, is there anyone who wants to debate this priceless value of DLC by using a $15 hot dog analogy?  Anyone out there want to discuss a priceless based value judgment on a game with someone who doesn't care about money at all except when he says that "30 minutes of gameplay is not worth $5 period"?

traversc wrote...I have not changed or ammended my argument in the slightest since post #2 or 3. Continue flaming at your leisure.

Yes, yes you have. 3 posts of mine ago I lay it all out for everyone to see.  You have completely changed a number of your arguments, including now whether the dollar amount that DLC cost is relevant.

traversc wrote...
My contention is with DLCs that you needed to pay for (e.g., WK, SP and RtO). Free DLCs like BDA are a non-issue, because they were free, and thus, its impossible to claim are overpriced. I should not have to make this distinction.

Wait, but didn't you just say "It is not required to assign value to money, or even discuss money at all."  So whether DLC is free or not should be, as you put it, not important.
But wait, you started this by saying "30 minutes of gameplay is not worth $5 period"?
Is price not required, or is it?

traversc wrote...
Objective measures are things that do not rely on perspective (e.g., remains constant across all persons measured). For example, relative time played (more or less), minutes of dialogue, disk space of campaign, etc. Subjective measures are those that do rely on perspective, such as "The nice feeling of satisfcation you get from completionism" or "the nice squishy feeling you get from burying beloved King Calian." Objective measures themselves are sampling variables used to estimate the amount of content. Quality of content is another important factor, but as stated earlier, does not matter when you compare RtO to DA:O.

Even if you were to assign subjective measures considerable importance, that is not enough to change the argument. Subjective value would have to be at least an order of magnitude greater than objective measures.

Again, this is you DECLARING these things to be so.  You do not get to decide for everyone else what is relevant, what is important, what counts as something and what doesn't.

Arguing with you is like trying to debate a creationist.  You do the Gish Gallop - throwing out so much unstanstaniated and often contradictory information that when someone tries to address, point by point, your arguments, you ad hominem them with -
"Wall of text - boil it down."

You can dismiss me point by point rebutting you by refusing to read it, by refusing to address when your logical fallacies and inconsistencies and contradictions are exposed - but that just makes you more and more wrong in most reasonable people's eyes.

Modifié par MerinTB, 17 janvier 2010 - 12:32 .

[addiction21]

Aslend wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

It would probably be much easier just to say

"DLC BAD. NOT WANT. NOT WANT ANYONE TO WANT."

wouldn't it?

Freedom of choice, I believe most of us still have this? Yes? To buy or not to buy would then be the question. From the sound of all this, it is merely I want what the next door neighbors have, but think it's unfair because I can't afford it.
 OOh a hotdog, can I get mustard and relish on mine? Will this be a new vendor stand DLC? When will it come out? Is it free?

I would like to choose a payment plan for DLC's. How about 25 cents every 3 months? Think that would pass?