945 réponses à ce sujet

[Acid Wire]

Well, I'm not going to read the 32 pages, so I'll just post my opinion on the title to this thread:



Personally, the only DLC I have is the one I received for free as I bought the game (redeem codes), and I'm not willing to pay for the rest of the DLC. I prefer games the good old fashionned way: you pay first, and you get everything. I don't like this system where you pay for a game and then you've gotta add a few dollars here and there to have the rest... screw that. I'm a caveman, and buying stuff online is a pain in the ass for me (and I'm 20, not 85 and resilient to the internet). When I buy a game, I want the whole thing, and download fixes and patch if I think the game has too many bugs... not receive 90% of the game and then have to download and do all sorts of stuff to get the last 10%.



Personally, I would have preferred paying my copy of DAO at a higher price and have received everything. I'm afraid in the future we'll be hostages of the internet to play video games.



I don't know what the whole point of DLC is... is it a move to try to hide the genuine cost of DAO? I'm sure that if you add to the original cost of the game, the costs of the DLCs, you'll get a DAO that's not as cheap as it looked in the store.

Is it a move to release an "unfinished" game quickly and be able to finnish it later... some sort of "Sell now, finnish later" strategy?



I'm know my guesses can sound stupid, I'm just casual video game player.



DAO is a great game, I loved it overall... but as a casual gamer, I don't like all this internet functionality stuff.

[Cybercoco]

The reason wow got dragged in is due to the op talking up blizzard, and his u/n. I play bg as well, and the graphics there dont bug me at all. But if I am expecyed to pay 15 dollars a month for an "up to date" and "current" game, I would expect the graphics to be updated as well. I also play DDO, and happily pay for it, it gets and stays updated. And anyway, why should I hate on FF or KOTOR, when wow is so easy to hate on due to it's completely pathetic loserbase.. I mean userbase. Talk about fanbois, you guys are the ones stupid enough to pay for a game that is years behind the times and blizzard is laughing in their pockets with every dollar they get from you.

Well, I guess they can console in the fact they're not 'stupid' enough to pay for a free to play game at least, can't they?

That's your drivers license pic in the avatar, isn't it?<_<

Modifié par Cybercoco, 17 janvier 2010 - 08:45 .

[Cybercoco]

Just so we're on the same page. If a Bioware rep happened a long saying, "That's an excellent idea, OP. We'll get right on that!", the rest (or the majority ) of you in this thread would object, and subsequently, begin to whine about it?

Just saying.

Modifié par Cybercoco, 17 janvier 2010 - 08:57 .

[MprezdNZ]

Acid Wire wrote...

Well, I'm not going to read the 32 pages, so I'll just post my opinion on the title to this thread:

Personally, the only DLC I have is the one I received for free as I bought the game (redeem codes), and I'm not willing to pay for the rest of the DLC. I prefer games the good old fashionned way: you pay first, and you get everything. I don't like this system where you pay for a game and then you've gotta add a few dollars here and there to have the rest... screw that. I'm a caveman, and buying stuff online is a pain in the ass for me (and I'm 20, not 85 and resilient to the internet). When I buy a game, I want the whole thing, and download fixes and patch if I think the game has too many bugs... not receive 90% of the game and then have to download and do all sorts of stuff to get the last 10%.

Personally, I would have preferred paying my copy of DAO at a higher price and have received everything. I'm afraid in the future we'll be hostages of the internet to play video games.

I don't know what the whole point of DLC is... is it a move to try to hide the genuine cost of DAO? I'm sure that if you add to the original cost of the game, the costs of the DLCs, you'll get a DAO that's not as cheap as it looked in the store.
Is it a move to release an "unfinished" game quickly and be able to finnish it later... some sort of "Sell now, finnish later" strategy?

I'm know my guesses can sound stupid, I'm just casual video game player.

DAO is a great game, I loved it overall... but as a casual gamer, I don't like all this internet functionality stuff.

How is the game unfinished without this content? I never thought, 'Why don't we get to go to Ostagar and get the King's corpse' because it would possibly be walking into a big trap and would just be looking at the past. but when they said they were bringing it out, I thought, ;that could be kinda cool'. The Stone prisoner doesn't really ADD to the story in any way. Neither does Warden's Keep. DLC is there if you want some more side stories basically, but in no way does not having it hinder the enjoyment or make the game unfinished. Given that the CE was $70 for over 100 hours of gameplay, I would happily pay more for the DLC because most games in that $60-70 bracket would last me 20 hours or so at a stretch. I have more than got my money's worth from this game without paying for the dlc. 

So yes. Be a caveman. Stay in your hovel. But don't imply you are being screwed over with an incomplete game because they chose to offer additional content. 

And given that the game was finished around April and then held back so they could look after console gamers, I would hardly say they rushed it out incomplete. 

[Whisa]

Acid Wire wrote...


Personally, I would have preferred paying my copy of DAO at a higher price and have received everything. I'm afraid in the future we'll be hostages of the internet to play video games.

I don't know what the whole point of DLC is... is it a move to try to hide the genuine cost of DAO? I'm sure that if you add to the original cost of the game, the costs of the DLCs, you'll get a DAO that's not as cheap as it looked in the store.
Is it a move to release an "unfinished" game quickly and be able to finnish it later... some sort of "Sell now, finnish later" strategy?

You have everything when you buy the game.  It is 100% complete.

However, what this allows the devs to do is say "hey, we've got a good (great) game here.  What if we added more for them to do?".  if EVERYTHING that was thought of by the Devs and bounced about as a viable addition, the game would never finish, or would finish with people thinking "gee, i wish x could be added".  This way, they CAN add it for people that want to play it.  They CAN mess with the universe they've created and give it depth that just isn't possible to put in the original.

But hey..  they could always spend the time making and creating an expansion that's another $60 ONLY for content that could be delivered in DLC rather than focusing on a new part of the universe.  It'd be the advent of Dragon Age: Run Around In History!.  Personally, I'd rather have DA:O:A, where we get a completely new, fresh setting to continue in while any additional, lore-related content is handled in optional DLC.

[Z-Dragon]

just in case someone didn't post this, i'll put it up now

assuming you bought wow when it first came out, didn't get any expansions, and have been playing constantly, you've given blizzard $950...

Wouldn't exactly call it FREE content updates.....

Modifié par Z-Dragon, 17 janvier 2010 - 10:39 .

[Must have name]

Thing is, if you're comparing something to WoW, there really isn't much to WoW except it being a timesink. People pay £10 or $15 or whatever it is a month and end up playing several hours every day, easily to the excess of 100 hours a month.



It's pointless comparing the true "value" of games to other things. It's completely daft with all these people saying "I can get a coffee for that!". I also bought Mass Effect a few weeks ago for £3, the price of the DLC. I could do lots of things that entertain me without spending a penny.



It's even pointless to compare games to other genres of games. If I pay a subscription to WoW, i'm playing it for the social aspect, and also because I can dump endless hours into it. If I buy an FPS, chances are i'm paying for a short but fun single player and then the multiplayer. If I buy an RPG, i'm paying for the storyline aswell as some duration. I could go on and on. Really, the only two things to attain to the value of the DLC are what it's like relative to the game you bought it for, and what it's like comparitive to similar DLCs for games of a similar genre. Personally, i'm of the opinion any DLC for an RPG like DA needs a solid storyline, and 2-3 hours of gameplay. I'd be willing to pay anywhere up to say £7.50 for this, because it would really add something.

[ladydesire]

traversc wrote...


To be clear:
The quality of the product is based on both objective and subjective measrues. The quality of gameplay is somewhat more subjective than other measures, but I posited that the gameplay in RtO and DA:O are quite similar. No one has disputed this point.

I wouldn't expect them to be any different, as RtO is an add in to DA:O; this is why no one argues this point.

Thus, you are left with amount of content, a more objective measure. We then determine the relative amount of content between RtO and DA:O with any number of objective variables, such as gameplay length. There are of course, other subjective measures that have not been accounted for. But when objective measures point towards a huge disparity in pay scale, it becomes clear that subjective measures cannot make up the difference.

You keep saying there is a huge disparity in pay scale, and yet we got an extremely good deal on DA:O, if you compare gameplay length of the base game to quite a few other similar RPGs out there; most that I am familiar with don't have anywhere near 120 hours of gameplay out of the box.

Ok, say Bioware did try releasing DLC "on the same pay scale". Since there is less apparent effort put into DLC compared to the base game, doesn't it seem logical that such content would end up being free, or at such low cost that posting it on PSN and XBL wouldn't be profitable?

Maybe it won't be profitable. Maybe instead of reducing the price, they could increase the amount of content?

What form would this content take? Why should Bioware stretch out a story with filler that does nothing for the story they want to tell except make it take longer to please a vocal group of fans?

It doesn't take into account the amount of work that goes into everything in the DLC; the environments and such are content too, even if you don't think of them as such.

Yes,environments are certainly content. But don't forget that DA:O has a huge amount of environments, compared to RtO, which just has 2-3. Gameplay length is a sampling variable, and you don't need to take into account other variables to get a rough estimate. If gameplay length correlates to the number of environments you still have a relative proportion that is the same. In other words, 2 environments and 60 minutes of gameplay is still twice as much content than 30 minutes and 1 environment, and not say 4x as much content (which wouldn't help your counterargument, anyway).

The cost of developing any game content needs to be figured into the cost, which you seem intent on dismissing as irrelevant, or do you expect the Bioware DLC team to work on it in their spare time?

[Acid Wire]

Whisa wrote...

You have everything when you buy the game.  It is 100% complete.

However, what this allows the devs to do is say "hey, we've got a good (great) game here.  What if we added more for them to do?".  if EVERYTHING that was thought of by the Devs and bounced about as a viable addition, the game would never finish, or would finish with people thinking "gee, i wish x could be added".  This way, they CAN add it for people that want to play it.  They CAN mess with the universe they've created and give it depth that just isn't possible to put in the original.

I see what you mean. I can conceive all the advantages of DLC... but I don't know, I suppose I have an "uncle scrooge" personality and don't like to spend money on a game I thought I already bought... I suppose I'm stingy.

[CaptainAlex2000]

If the vanilla Dragon Age was too short, and Bioware/EA was charging for DLC, then people would have a right to be upset.



But the fact is, Dragon Age was a LONG game, and still under $50 (on steam anyway). In fact, I bought the deluxe version on Steam during the %25 off sale, so I still only paid ~$47.



It is no secret that the gaming industry is in trouble. If optional DLC is a way that great developers can make some money in order to deliver great games like Dragon Age, then I am all for it.

[Whisa]

Acid Wire wrote...

Whisa wrote...

You have everything when you buy the game.  It is 100% complete.

However, what this allows the devs to do is say "hey, we've got a good (great) game here.  What if we added more for them to do?".  if EVERYTHING that was thought of by the Devs and bounced about as a viable addition, the game would never finish, or would finish with people thinking "gee, i wish x could be added".  This way, they CAN add it for people that want to play it.  They CAN mess with the universe they've created and give it depth that just isn't possible to put in the original.

I see what you mean. I can conceive all the advantages of DLC... but I don't know, I suppose I have an "uncle scrooge" personality and don't like to spend money on a game I thought I already bought... I suppose I'm stingy.

I usually am too..  until I get to games *hides*

I see an interesting game, I want it.  Or an old game I used to play and now I see the sequel..  *stares guiltly at Majesty 2*  But I'm also a person who loves lore, so DLC is perfect for me ^.^

[TheRealIncarnal]

I guess there's just two main schools of thought on the subject, so far as I can tell from this thread.

1. By buying the game I intended to buy everything for the game, thus if new things are made for it that I must pay for then I paid for an incomplete product.

I suppose an allegory for this would be if  you buy a movie, which seems to be complete when you buy it, but then the movie studio releases new important content for the movie, which now you must buy or have an incomplete movie compared to the new more complete version. 

2. I bought the game and it is complete, and I'm fine with paying for new extra content for it if I think it's worth buying.

Going with the above movie train of though, this is where you buy a movie, and then they movie studio releases new content that you can buy to further improve your movie watching experience. This actually often occurs with "Director's Cuts" and the like, but for those movies you actually have to buy the whole movie over again to get that content.

I'm sure there's some slight variations, but am I more or less correct in this deduction?

Modifié par TheRealIncarnal, 17 janvier 2010 - 11:17 .

[ladydesire]

TheRealIncarnal wrote...

I guess there's just two main schools of thought on the subject, so far as I can tell from this thread.

1. By buying the game I intended to buy everything for the game, thus if new things are made for it which I must pay for then I paid for an incomplete product.

2. I bought the game and it is complete, and I'm fine with paying for more content for it if I think it's worth buying, however it is only extra content.

I'm sure there's some flight variations, but am I more or less correct in this deduction?

That about sums it up, as far as I can tell.

[addiction21]

ladydesire wrote...

TheRealIncarnal wrote...

I guess there's just two main schools of thought on the subject, so far as I can tell from this thread.

1. By buying the game I intended to buy everything for the game, thus if new things are made for it which I must pay for then I paid for an incomplete product.

2. I bought the game and it is complete, and I'm fine with paying for more content for it if I think it's worth buying, however it is only extra content.

I'm sure there's some flight variations, but am I more or less correct in this deduction?

That about sums it up, as far as I can tell.

I just want waffles...

[Sloth Of Doom]

addiction21 wrote...

[I just want waffles...

Buying waffles is a waste of time because the price isn't the same as my self-imposed notions of value.

Waffles should be free.

[addiction21]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Waffles should be free.

Well ya and anyone that says otherwise is a fascist.

Modifié par addiction21, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:02 .

[krisd2]

addiction21 wrote...



To be trolled one must be oblivious of being trolled and a palpable emotional response must be enacted in the one being trolled. Non of which is true in Merins case.
Also a troll is measured in how much he need to write to garner such a response. In this case traversc would be the worst troll ever or just be that thick headed.

traversc writes like 10 lines and gets a freakin book back from merin. its quite a response in my opinion.

On topic:
People are comparing to wow which you pay a monthly fee has anyone heard of guild wars? 4 years old free to play MMO that still gets free updates. Not so much content added updates (though there is some) and its definitely went downhill but its still 4 years of free updates. Why can't dragon age make updates based on sales like guild wars does?

[Parker Kincaid]

MerinTB wrote...

I have questions for the non-traversc people out there:

(traversc, you can answer if you want but you have dodged the questions so far so I'm not directly asking you anymore)

MerinTB wrote..

1.) What do you consider content?  I'm not asking what you like, or what you can do without - no opinions on importance or if X is better than Y.  What could be included in a DLC or expansion pack that should be considered content?

This will be an answer that may vary from person to person. To me content for a DLC is additional content that is too condensed/small to be considered a full expansion. DLC would make use of the existing foundation of the game but add more gameplay. An expansion should be built on the foundation of the game but contain additional locations that we haven't yet been able to explore as well as additional companions, NPCs to interact with, etc. Expansions should be more involved and larger than a DLC. Anyway, that's how I view it. Yes, I realize this is somewhat vague.

MerinTB wrote..

2.) Do you believe that people willing to pay the going price for a product in some way are harming people who would only buy said product for a cheaper price?  

Value for your dollar is a judgement call. If people won't buy the product for the price that the creator sets and everyone buys it later for a cheaper price then the creator may decide that they won't waste their time in the future working on a product that doesn't return on its investment. The creator may lower the price but they still must get a return on the investment.

My deciding I am willing to pay the higher price does not, IMHO, harm the person who doesn't want to buy it for that price if they wait and buy it cheaper down the road. The person who does wait, however, might harm the people who are willing to pay the higher price because the developer may just not spend the time to create addition content in the future.

MerinTB wrote..

3.) If you repeatedly ask questions of someone and they don't answer them, are they really having an honest debate with you? 

In a discussion/debate/etc where opinions are being expressed and points are trying to be made it is utterly impossible to get anywhere when questions are not answered. If a person won't answer your questions then, no, IMHO, there is no honest debate taking place. It becomes nothing more than noise.

MerinTB wrote..

4.) If someone's reasoning keeps shifting and their end point changes everytime you ask for clarification is it even worth trying to discuss anything with them? 

This is a tricky question. In a debate/discussion a person's opinion/reasoning can shift naturally. Opinions can shift, yes, but a person who constantly changes their opinion and endlessly argues/debates/discusses the topic generally, in my experience, just loves being the center of attention.

Modifié par Parker Kincaid, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:34 .

[MerinTB]

krisd2 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...



To be trolled one must be oblivious of being trolled and a palpable emotional response must be enacted in the one being trolled. Non of which is true in Merins case.
Also a troll is measured in how much he need to write to garner such a response. In this case traversc would be the worst troll ever or just be that thick headed.

traversc writes like 10 lines and gets a freakin book back from merin. its quite a response in my opinion.

You could also look at it like I respond to most everything traversc brings up and leave the context intact of what said, and he ignored the majority of what I said to pick apart two unrelated lines of what I wrote which he combines together to create some straw man to argue against, and when I try and respond to what he's done, he ignores any questions I ask and most of what I write to simply do it again.

I chose to address most of what traversc said.  He chose to ignore almost all of what I said.  If you think the latter is better because of its brevity then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Modifié par MerinTB, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:37 .

[IronCladNinja]

 A lot of people miss the point that the whole objective of making video games, is to make money. Game studios aren't charities. Personally I have found all of Bioware's DLCs to be fairly priced. Even fallout 3 had decently priced (if, somewhat low in quality) DLC, for me it comes down to the question "Would I rather buy a Cheddar Bacon Uncle Burger Combo, or run around the wasteland/Ferelden countryside in a predator suit/set of shiny gold armor with a massive sword?"


Also, in regards to Guild Wars comments. Guild Wars has very few micro-transactions, and none of them give you any sort of competitive edge in PVE or PVP, so they scarcely count, as they are completely unnecessary.

Modifié par IronCladNinja, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:46 .

[MerinTB]

sprybry wrote...

well, we NEVER have to wonder where merin stands...

On his very worn-out and abused soapbox?

i personally found it an interesting read (on merin's part - i had a helluva time trying to stay with traversc's rambling). good job, mate!

Hey, I'm here to entertain.  Mostly myself.  I think.
What were we talking about?