945 réponses à ce sujet

[AlmondBrown]

hero 2 wrote...

shantisands wrote...

It's a business and conducting themselves as a business is not stupid or selfish.

False. Business is inherently selfish. 

Business is inherently risky, thus a certain level of selfishness can be accomadated. Alot of people put alot of money up front based on some High Risk asessments. If those risk do not pan out, that investment is lost, totally.

Given that, it is not a major leap to allow those taking that risk to be rewarded accordingly.

If you do not think that is inherently proper, then the Gaming industry will not miss the few dollars any one individual would withhold in protest.

Perfect example of WEB based cage rattling vs real customer input...

The COD:MW2 crowd was in an utter lather when the final facts became known about the changes/lenght being provided in the Single player, Server setup for that one.

Guess what? Last week they broke the 1.6 BILLION dollars in Sales mark. Apparently being pissed off about the way things are done, and paying out the money anyways, don't seem to jive.

[Vendicatorbluf]

WarlordThor wrote...
The content sadly is extremely quick for the price. I can get a movie ticket, sometimes 2 and a half hours of entertainment, for $9. $7 at a discount. What we have here is dlc that last anywhere between 20 minutes and an hour, depending on how much dialogue you sit through. And the charge is at least $5. Therefore you really are not getting what you pay for.

okay lets see, a movie ticket as you said about 9 to 7$ sure sure, movie time around 2hours generaly, and DLC's about 20minutes okay then.

now on the flat board yes its annoying but lookie,
lets say one ticket 7$, thats 7$ for two hour and then if you want to see the movie again you have to pay another 7$ where with DLC you pay the fee then complet, Start up complet, start up complet,
so in the long run you GET more time for your money and you pay LESS.

[addiction21]

Vendicatorbluf wrote...

WarlordThor wrote...
The content sadly is extremely quick for the price. I can get a movie ticket, sometimes 2 and a half hours of entertainment, for $9. $7 at a discount. What we have here is dlc that last anywhere between 20 minutes and an hour, depending on how much dialogue you sit through. And the charge is at least $5. Therefore you really are not getting what you pay for.

But I could go to that same move and hate it.

[Sloth Of Doom]

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going. Bad logic is still bad logic, no matter how many pages of circular, nonsensical arguments one uses to try to explain it away.

[MerinTB]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going. Bad logic is still bad logic, no matter how many pages of circular, nonsensical arguments one uses to try to explain it away.

Isn't it better contained here than spreading to other and/or new threads?

:happy:

[Sloth Of Doom]

MerinTB wrote...

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going. Bad logic is still bad logic, no matter how many pages of circular, nonsensical arguments one uses to try to explain it away.

Isn't it better contained here than spreading to other and/or new threads?

:happy:

Well, if the other new threads were a $5 hotdog, and you went to the movies and ate the hotdog, but halfway through a $15 movie you were still hungry, wouldn't the other threads about the cost of DLC be worth $200?

[HoloSight]

I agree with the original posts....It should be free:)

[Fluffykeith]

When was the last time the OP responded on this thread?

[Tirigon]

He is dead, and buried. Then he got eaten by BioWare for this post.

[J.F.C.C.McDondy]

The OP is satisfied. "Wow, look. So much responses in MY OWN thread. Am I cool yet?"

[Fluffykeith]

Well in that case I hope Bioware chewed properly...wouldn't want them to choke...

[Tirigon]

He´s probably quite cool. Maybe even cold. I hear dead people tend to be cool / cold.

[Finiffa]

He started up other insightfull posts like this:

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/9/index/659296

Modifié par Finiffa, 19 janvier 2010 - 07:35 .

[Bryy_Miller]

MerinTB wrote...

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going. Bad logic is still bad logic, no matter how many pages of circular, nonsensical arguments one uses to try to explain it away.

Isn't it better contained here than spreading to other and/or new threads?

:happy:

Oh, the threads will come. They will come.

[addiction21]

Finiffa wrote...

He started up other insightfull posts like this:

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/9/index/659296

Just when I thought I could not think any less of a person...

[Grey21]

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.

That's all nice and well but DA:O and it's DLC aren't two different games, or two compleetly different forms of entertainment. It's one game and its mini content expansion. Now I know that DA:O has a fantastic price/content relation, relatively to the average game that much is a fact. The game costs me 60 euros and one playthrough lasted me up to 40 hours (first playthrough). Now Bioware/EA has charged me 5 euros for the Warden's keep which lasted me up to 1.5 hours (first playthrough). Compaired to DA:O that is more the twice as expansive.

I understand there are other factors involved. Not everyone who buys full games such as DA:O will buy DLC so time spend working on DLC would be better spend on full games and the losses of making DLC instead should translate into a higher price. But then again you don't need to spend as much time creating DLC as you would for a full game, the engine is made and so are most of the textures, the combat system and most animations used. So is it really that hard to understand that people feel ripped off when you charge 5 euros for 1.5 hour of digital entertainment of the same kind as the full game?

P.S. I loved your DA books, keep up the good work!

[addiction21]

Grey21 wrote...


So is it really that hard to understand that people feel ripped off when you charge 5 euros for 1.5 hour of digital entertainment of the same kind as the full game?

P.S. I loved your DA books, keep up the good work!

It is not hard to understand. Especially since some of those people would still feel ripped off if it cost 2 euros (what is that like 3 dollars american)
I am not saying you would be but some would be. I did get WK for free with my edition but if I did pay 7 dollars I would feel like I did not get everything I should have. 5 dollars would of felt better for me.

Honestly you walk up to this huge keep with mines and towers but when I walked inside it was about as big as my first apartment. An efficiancy A room and a bathroom. The kitchen was shared and it was ****ing nasty.

[bzombo]

David Gaider wrote...

Peeker2009 wrote...
Likewise, those who posted their ironic definitions of "customer", are simply characterising those who disagree with their opinion as unrealistic,  whinging babies. Its a game anyone can play. Eg, Customer: one who can either like it or lump it, or one who will pay anything to feed their addiction. I don't mean these to insult anyone, just demonstrating  how such comments are not useful.

This is a good point. Before anyone tries putting words in my mouth, I am not suggesting that a customer should not demand to be treated fairly. You should, and many people are. The fact that there are some people whose demands go way beyond fair treatment doesn't change this. Ultimately our goal as a game developer is to provide a solid product that our customers will enjoy -- that is and remains our focus, as I think it should be.

as disappointed as i am about rto being delayed, i must say that it
takes a lot more integrity to delay something for long term purposes
than to just throw the thing out there, break people's games, and just
fix it later. i think more people should look at it this way and
realize that bioware is risking reduced sales to make the product right
before releasing. that is something not often done these days and i
think the people at bioware should be thanked and not be attacked. short term thinking would have just put out a bad product on jan 5 and we'd all be screwed.

[eridolfi12]

I think what wowpwnslol is trying to say is that we shouldn't be charged for something that should have been included in the game to begin with. I remember the days of baldur's gate when the only thing you were charged for was an expansion not extra characters, all of the characters were already in the game.



Now with the DLC companies will take advantage of consumers and release partial games and charge for other parts of it. Yeah they don't have a significance to the actual core game but some might find it adds to the story or whatever.



I myself get tired of developers releasing games and then charging for extra weapons, armor, levels, or whatever. Just release a game and be done with it.

[SheffSteel]

eridolfi12 wrote...

I think what wowpwnslol is trying to say is that we shouldn't be charged for something that should have been included in the game to begin with. I remember the days of baldur's gate when the only thing you were charged for was an expansion not extra characters, all of the characters were already in the game.

Now with the DLC companies will take advantage of consumers and release partial games and charge for other parts of it. Yeah they don't have a significance to the actual core game but some might find it adds to the story or whatever.

I myself get tired of developers releasing games and then charging for extra weapons, armor, levels, or whatever. Just release a game and be done with it.

I have good news! Everything people have said about DLC is a lie. There is no DLC available for Dragon Age.
Your game is complete. Off you go and enjoy it.

[exorzist]

In my latest article I even go so far to ask BioWare to release Return to Ostagar for free after all the stop and go.

Read here if you are interested.

[MerinTB]

eridolfi12 wrote...
I myself get tired of developers releasing games and then charging for extra weapons, armor, levels, or whatever. Just release a game and be done with it.

This boggles me.  Completely.

Just buy the main game YOURSELF and then YOURSELF be done with it.  How does it inconvenience you if the game company releases more stuff for an already released game?

You own a computer I assume since you are posting on an internet forum.  Are you somehow inconvenienced because after you bought your computer the manufacturers of all the different parts in your computer came up with driver updates, with newer versions of those parts in your computer, etc?

If your computer works and you don't want any of those updates or new parts, don't get them.  End of story.

If you get your game and are content with it and don't want to deal with any new content they develop and sell later, then not only do you not have to buy it - you don't have to pay any attention to announcements about new content, you don't have to go the game company's websites and read about it, you most certainly don't have to post in a thread about new game content if you want nothing to do with it.

Sheesh.

Seriously?

[traversc]

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.

Do you agree that there is a disparity in pay scale? 

If you do agree that there is a disparity, and still believe RtO was fairly priced, then you are saying that DA:O is actually valued somewhere $600-700. While it WAS a good deal, it was not that good a deal. I won't believe many people would be willing to pay that much for the game.

That is essentially the pay scale you decide on paying for DLCs.

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?

They could combine several DLCs and release them as a bundle. Also, I am not saying they should do it to please a group of fans, I'm saying they should do it to be honest and not charge exorbitant prices for content.  What I am asking for is completely reasonable.

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?

I am not dismissing any factor as irrelevant. What I am saying is that it is proportional; e.g., for every environ you have in RtO, you have 10 in DA:O. Thus, the relative value does not change.

Modifié par traversc, 19 janvier 2010 - 09:49 .

[Parker Kincaid]

traversc wrote ...

They could combine several DLCs and release them as a bundle. Also, I am not saying they should do it to please a group of fans, I'm saying they should do it to be honest and not charge exorbitant prices for content.  What I am asking for is completely reasonable. 

I'm replying to this specific point because I've actually previously thought about this but didn't post. The following is purely my opinion and is hypothetical.

A number of DLCs all bundled together would be no different than an Expansion Pack, IMHO. The price would be greater to buy the Expansion and the wait would be longer to get them to play. Something I really like about smaller individual DLCs is the time factor involved with regard to a release cycle of smaller added content more often rather than a long wait for a bigger bundle. QCing is always a pain but for a smaller bit of work it should, theoretically, be a bit easier and quicker. Obviously bugs always exist and will always slip in. This is a given.

I'd prefer to have a smaller DLC every couple to ever few months rather than wait 6 or more for a large Expansion Pack. Smaller DLCs keep the game more in the player's memory. Personally, it makes me more interested in continuing to play without just moving on to other newer games and not looking back. The longer I go without playing a game then the less likely I am to quickly get into it again which could be a number of years.

Lastly, and most importantly with the DLCs being smaller and the fact that we know the story behind the DLC we, as users, can decide for ourselves if we wish to purchase it or not. Some of us will pay the $5 and some won't be interested. What if they bundle a handful of DLCs together and I'm only interested in a single one of those bundled DLCs in the larger Pack? I can't just get the single DLC because they are an Expansion. Now I have to pay for it all just to get the one part that I actually care about. I've lost some freedom of choice and I've paid more money. Smaller separate DLC actually gives the gamer more choice.

Modifié par Parker Kincaid, 19 janvier 2010 - 10:48 .

[Metallicka]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

I don't think DLC should be free. I do, however, believe that it's a bit overcharged. I suppose it really depends on how much they make from the DLC (if the make a lot of money, they could lower the costs), but I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure?

Paying around 7$ for Warden's is ... well, I don't regret buying it, really, but I don't feel it's really worth the money either. It they had charged more than 7$, I would have told my friends not to buy it.

I would definitely not pay 15$ for a new character, however. That's like 20% of what I paid for the full game. A new character does not add 20% additional playtime in terms of completely new plots and quests. It's still the same game all over again, with a small twist. A new character does not make up 20% of the total gaming experience. In addition to that, there's also the risk that I won't enjoy the character (I don't like all of the already existing characters), so buying the character and finding out that I hate it would be kind of a bust. And I don't think Bioware does any refunds on DLC?

I might be willing to pay 15$ for a new character if
1) I hear a lot of great stuff about it in reviews from people who share my taste in character
and
2) If the personal quest(s) for the character is/are much more extensive that Shale's. So that we get a new character, new conversations AND a quests worth at least a few hours gameplay.

But I would be most hesitant to buy a new character for myself, if I hadn't heard any good reviews about it, since whether or not it will be worth it depends solely upon whether or not I'd like the character in question.

I understand that a new-character-DLC has got to be more expensive than just a small quest, since it'd probably include lots of costs for voice actors and such. The only way I would buy a new character for 15$ is if we were promised several (4, maybe?) hours worth of new quests and areas to explore.

I'd probably pay 10$ for a new character, however. Seems a more reasonable price for Shale, at least. In my opinion.

You're forgetting a very important point regarding Shale, If you bought the game new, he was FREE. If you didn't buy it new you had the option to pay $15 to get him. I believe most people did the math, realized that is they wanted Shale it was cheaper to spend th extra $5 for a new copy of DA:O