945 réponses à ce sujet

[Peeker2009]

Metallicka



I, for one, bought the game new, and didn't get Shale for free. Instead I got 5 items (won't list them here) that I frankly thought were a bit gimmicky. That is, if they were simply included in the original game, no one would be posting "wow, I can't believe they included these awesome items". But it did at least introduce me to the mechanics of downloading DLC, which was possibly one of the main intention in the first place.



Don't quote me on this, but it seems the Stone Prisoner was only included in the collector's edition (a bit soon for a such an edition?), which I didn't even know was available at the time (or was it?). My bad I guess. On another thread, can't remember which, one of the moderators also assumed that everyone got it for free, so there is some uncertainty on this matter all round.



So now, when Shale's "awesomeness" or otherwise is discussed in other threads, I have nothing to add to the discussion. Of course, I could buy it and join in: probably won't but that's my choice.Yep, the game is great with or without DLC, and as long as I am not constantly reminded that my experience with it is slightly "inferior" due to missing some parts then it's all good.

[Whisa]

Peeker2009 wrote...

Metallicka

I, for one, bought the game new, and didn't get Shale for free. Instead I got 5 items (won't list them here) that I frankly thought were a bit gimmicky. That is, if they were simply included in the original game, no one would be posting "wow, I can't believe they included these awesome items". But it did at least introduce me to the mechanics of downloading DLC, which was possibly one of the main intention in the first place.

Don't quote me on this, but it seems the Stone Prisoner was only included in the collector's edition (a bit soon for a such an edition?), which I didn't even know was available at the time (or was it?). My bad I guess. On another thread, can't remember which, one of the moderators also assumed that everyone got it for free, so there is some uncertainty on this matter all round.

So now, when Shale's "awesomeness" or otherwise is discussed in other threads, I have nothing to add to the discussion. Of course, I could buy it and join in: probably won't but that's my choice.Yep, the game is great with or without DLC, and as long as I am not constantly reminded that my experience with it is slightly "inferior" due to missing some parts then it's all good.

I bought the normal version and got Shale + Blood Dragon Armor.

The five items sound like you bought the delux, which does include Shale..  I believe the code is on the back of the Blood Dragon, but don't quote me on that.  It's on the back of something, I know.  If you didn't get it, you should have, and can probably petition bioware to recieve it.

[addiction21]

@peeker

* Every new retail box of DA:O contains a promotional code on a promotional code card which when redeemed provides a free download of The Stone Prisoner. Digital purchases of DA:O will have the code emailed.

Next to the description of it on the DAO site. http://dragonage.bioware.com/addon/

It is very small and off to the side.

Many games have taken to having a CE edition with a bunch of little trinkets and a neat box. I generally could care less. I opted for the digital deluxe edition from Direct 2 Drive since it came with the Wardens Keep DLC free.

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

With the speed they are putting them up at as well as the actual content in them I have to agree with the op, he is not trolling, there has been going two months roughly and we have only seen wardens keep, and the shale thing was already done at release as well, I think it is time calling in for a meeting about this DLC thing, it is not like that the game got enough ground to keep people playing long enough for an expansion to actually appear... and nope not going to pre-order any crap before it is actually released.

[Peeker2009]

Doh, thanks for the info everyone. I didn't even bother to look at the Mass Effect promo - sure enough the code is there staring me in the face :wub:A good reason to start another game I'd say

Modifié par Peeker2009, 20 janvier 2010 - 01:49 .

[Sloth Of Doom]

Peeker2009 wrote...

Doh, thanks for the info everyone. I didn't even bother to look on the other side of the Mass Effect promo - sure enough the code is there staring me in the face :wub:A good reason to start another game I'd say

A very common mistake apparently.  People see an ME advert and just toss it aside.

[grieferbastard]

SheffSteel wrote...

grieferbastard wrote...
Me going 'blah blah blah'

Don't
get me wrong. I'm not opposed to your central point at all, and I have
to say that it's a pleasure to read such a well-thought-out post. But I
do disagree on one point.

It is quite possible to say
certain things about RtO vs DAO. For example, we can be sure that RtO
will sell significantly fewer units than DAO. We also know, as a
general principle, that
1. there are certain fixed expenses involved
in software development costs, which means that short content is more
expensive to develop than long content, on a dollars per gameplay hour
basis;
2. compared with most other games, DAO has been in development for a long time and hence was more expensive;
3. DAO provides very good value for money compared with other games; and
4.
DAO sales are not as high compared to those of competing products as
one might naively expect considering the higher gameplay value offered
by this product.

In other words, DLC is more expensive to make
than the original game, which in itself is not as profitable as it
ought to be, and DLC must also sell fewer copies. In order to make
this intellectual property into a competitive and profitable product
compared with other IPs, EA must make DLC more profitable than the
original game. Hence, higher prices per gameplay hour, or whatever
measure you prefer.

See this? This is good math and logic. Objective, not subjective. I notice it got no response.

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 notice you didn't respond to my post or the response I quoted above. You're attempting to imply that charging $5 for DLC is
dishonest and exorbitant. That assumption is not only baseless but
misleading. The only logic you have to support your argument is an
incredibly subjective and without any supporting data. Saying that
length of playtime is in any way germaine to cost of product to produce
and its relative profit margin is like saying that all water should be
free. 3/4 of the earths surface is water so obviously any charge for
the use/delivery of water is just brutal, ruthless profiteering by
utility companies. In order for your comparison of value to work,
length of playtime equating to production cost and profit gained in the
pricing structure, you have to completely ignore every other available fact and source of data on EA, BioWare, gaming and game development in general.

Where is the dishonesty. Where is the consequence of exorbitant prices - i.e., profit. Show me where you come to this answer.

I'm
an agreeable guy. I want to understand where you are coming from. Yet
you're so fixated on one concept, length = value. The fundamental
problem is that this equation is not only false but provably false.
You're also justifying your position by saying DLCs pricing is
exhorbitant, as in they are generating undue profits from its sale.
Again, provably false.

Can you see where this makes having a reasonable conversation on the topic with you difficult?

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.

We're fighting them here so we don't have to fight them at home.

[addiction21]

grieferbastard wrote...

We're fighting them here so we don't have to fight them at home.

Well this is my home so you best stop fighting them and start killing them. Lyme and and bury them deep while you are at it.

[Kwanzaabot]

I wouldn't say no to the occasional free downloadable item, but party members and quests? They've got to charge something. Bioware ain't a charity.

[Peeker2009]

I'll start a new game..tomorrow lol..thnx again guys.

Grieferbastard

You've written a well reasoned post, and personally I wouldn't want to get into an argument about length=value (I can have a look at Cosmopolitan for that lol), but the example you chose is an interesting one.

The debate about the value of water has been going on for ages, particularly when companies started putting it in plastic bottles and selling it for very high prices. Is there a better profit margin in the drinks industry? How do they succeed? Well, probably because of greater public concern over health and obesity these days coupled with highly sophisticated ad campaigns.

In fact, some towns in this country are now banning bottled water as the plastic bottles are just adding to environmental problems, and the benefits to the community are minimal because it has been proven in a number of studies that it is generally no better than tap water for your health. This will of course depend where you live; I don't hesitate to buy bottled water when in countries where the drinking the tap water is akin to a suicide attempt.

Yes, we should all be responsible for the consumer choices we make as individuals, in theory. But in practice, marketers are using every trick in the book from the field of Psychology to bypass our native skepticism: techniques that the average person with a high school education is finding increasingly difficult to combat.

Hence, those hateful adds late at night that prey on insecure cashed-up teenagers: "Is your partner cheating on you? Call *mobile number* to find out", followed by the cost in small print. As unbelievable as it may seem, these companies actually make a profit, which offends my sense of fair play. As much as I support a free market economy, I actually believe that society as a whole has an overriding duty to protect the particularly vulnerable (Game addicts aside for the moment).

So if I feel that someone I know (as opposed to complete strangers) is being preyed upon by one or more of these opportunistic companies/industries, should I say anything at all? or should I just tell myself that it's freedom of choice at work, and leave be? Btw, as a teacher (in an unrelated field) I find myself asking that question more often these days.

To relate this to the topic though, I have been a big fan of Bioware for many years, and am in no way questioning their integrity as a company, nor comparing them to Franklin Springs. Maker Forbid! And I don't know enough about EAs business practices to make a comment directed at them either. However, I would prefer to raise questions about any new marketing strategy while it is still in it's infancy, rather than wait until after it becomes an accepted practice. "Too late, she cried"../../../images/forum/emoticons/pinched.png

Modifié par Peeker2009, 20 janvier 2010 - 04:17 .

[MerinTB]

Peeker2009 wrote...
the collector's edition (a bit soon for a such an edition?)

Not to be nitpicky here, but Bioware has been doing "Collector's Editions" of their games since at least Baldur's Gate 2.  On release.
I know because I got the CE for BG2 on it's release, as well as for Jade Empire and Mass Effect.  I got KotOR intially for the XBOX and I don't think they CE'd that on initial release (though they may have and I missed it) and I didn't get it for NWN (and I'm not sure if they had a CE on release for that or no) but I do know that I preordered BG2, Jade Empire and Mass Effect, and all with the CE.

I'm sure other game companies have been doing similar sales for awhile, too.  It's for the uber-fans who wanted the swag in the box.
It's less enticing now that most of the swag is digital and most of that becomes easily, freely available online (legally) very early after game release.

[Sloth Of Doom]

Merin is correct here, almost every major game franchise has a 'collectors edition' on release now, such as the fallout 3 version in a tin box with a bobblehead, art book and making of DVD or the MW2 prestige edition that came with working night vision goggles, a steel box, art book, etc etc etc.

[TyroneTasty]

Lunch should be free.

[addiction21]

TyroneTasty wrote...

Lunch should be free.

It is if you know where your local soup kitchen is.

[Peeker2009]

MerinTB wrote...

Peeker2009 wrote...
the collector's edition (a bit soon for a such an edition?)

Not to be nitpicky here, but Bioware has been doing "Collector's Editions" of their games since at least Baldur's Gate 2.  On release.
I know because I got the CE for BG2 on it's release, as well as for Jade Empire and Mass Effect.  I got KotOR intially for the XBOX and I don't think they CE'd that on initial release (though they may have and I missed it) and I didn't get it for NWN (and I'm not sure if they had a CE on release for that or no) but I do know that I preordered BG2, Jade Empire and Mass Effect, and all with the CE.

I'm sure other game companies have been doing similar sales for awhile, too.  It's for the uber-fans who wanted the swag in the box.
It's less enticing now that most of the swag is digital and most of that becomes easily, freely available online (legally) very early after game release.

Fair enough, I'm just a little slow on the uptake. Thanks for the heads-up

[Azuarc]

grieferbastard wrote...

I'm
an agreeable guy. I want to understand where you are coming from. Yet
you're so fixated on one concept, length = value. The fundamental
problem is that this equation is not only false but provably false.
You're also justifying your position by saying DLCs pricing is
exhorbitant, as in they are generating undue profits from its sale.
Again, provably false.

Can you see where this makes having a reasonable conversation on the topic with you difficult?

I won't try to argue the second "false" statement since it probably is, however you can not say that "length = value" is provably false for one simple reason...the rating system is different for the consumer and for the producer. It might be false for the producer, but the customer is always right, and to the customer length does indeed equal value.

The first question I ask whenever posed with the prospect of either a game or add-on is "how awesome is it?" A very close second is "how much enjoyment (duration) will I get out of this?" My friend convinced me a few days ago to get the two DLC packs for Borderlands. I have since played them and agree that they're pretty good. Not nearly as good, proportionately, to the base game, but I still consider them to be worth the cost.

Adding one companion is not worth $15 to me, even coupled with the associated dialogues and the situational quandary you face whe recruiting this companion. I'm not sure where my cut-off is where I consider The Stone Prisoner no longer worth the cost involved...but $15 exceeds it. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me at the exact point that I stare at a price point whether the company making the game is turning a gross profit, a slim one, or selling at a loss. Yes, on some level, I do care, and want to support quality companies, but that's secondary. Even my favorite companies have to justify their products.


This is notwithstanding when I encounter a "feature" that strikes me as being part of the original product being sold separately. The primary draw, to me, of purchasing Warden's Keep would be to get the storage space. Why don't we HAVE a storage space already? If the game was balanced around not having that storage space, why do we get one later? Either it should have it or it should not have it, but that should be part of the base game if it is. Note that this is fundamentally different from "should Shale be in the game?" or "should Warden's Keep be in the game?" Shale is content. Warden's Keep is content. Storage space is not content.

[SheffSteel]

Given that The Stone Prisoner is free with every new copy of the game, the economics of whether or not it represents value for money are not straightforward.

[traversc]

I notice you didn't respond to my post or the response I quoted above. You're attempting to imply that charging $5 for DLC is
dishonest and exorbitant. That assumption is not only baseless but
misleading. The only logic you have to support your argument is an
incredibly subjective and without any supporting data.

...you're so fixated on one concept, length = value...

There are two things you are misrepresenting/misunderstanding about my argument:
1) I am not implying that they are exorbitant, I am directly stating it.  It is not an assumption, nor is it baseless, but a conclusion based on sampling technique of any given variable.  Nothing I have stated here is in any way subjective. 
2) Neither am I "fixated" on length = value.  I'm not saying that there is 100% correlation between length of play and amount of content.  It's perfectly possible to use another variable; if you believe that the length of play variable is anti-correlated,
choose another.  For example, another good point brought up by someon
else is production time.  You only need look at how fast they are
chruning out DLCs (several months) as opposed to DA:Os production (7? years). 

Re: cost of product to produce and profit:
At first glance, the cost of developing content has gone down compared to when they first started working on DLCs.  This could be wrong due to say, salary increases.  Others have argued this point, but it is pretty safe to say that it has not changed by a significant order.  Therefore, if you truly believe that selling DLCs at the same payscale would not be profitable, you are basically saying that there is massive overhead in publishing DLC content compared to publishing boxed games.  If that is indeed the case, then BW is doing (additional) disservice to its customers by going this route. 

3/4 of the earths surface is water so obviously any charge for the use/delivery of water is just brutal

Desalinization requires massive amounts of energy=money.  That is not a good analogy.


Edit:

some more info
http://uk.gamespot.c...ws/6239818.html
makes it sound like EA is pulling the strings not BW.  Sigh. 

http://www.penny-arc...omic/2009/11/6/
Penny arcade!  Gets it.  The last frame is telling. 

Modifié par traversc, 20 janvier 2010 - 05:24 .

[Wesley Wyndam Price]

Anyone happen to know if you will have to use points or cash for the x-box version of Awakenings?

[addiction21]

Wesley Wyndam Price wrote...

Anyone happen to know if you will have to use points or cash for the x-box version of Awakenings?

http://social.biowar.../9/index/546072 would be a much MUCH better place to be asking that.

[Wesley Wyndam Price]

addiction21 wrote...

Wesley Wyndam Price wrote...

Anyone happen to know if you will have to use points or cash for the x-box version of Awakenings?

http://social.biowar.../9/index/546072 would be a much MUCH better place to be asking that.

Why thank you Mr. Armchair mod!

Seriously though...that thread is so flooded that it's hard to follow...I didn't seem the harm in asking here.

[addiction21]

Wesley Wyndam Price wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Wesley Wyndam Price wrote...

Anyone happen to know if you will have to use points or cash for the x-box version of Awakenings?

http://social.biowar.../9/index/546072 would be a much MUCH better place to be asking that.

Why thank you Mr. Armchair mod!

Seriously though...that thread is so flooded that it's hard to follow...I didn't seem the harm in asking here.

No need to be insulting I was just pointing you to the place where your question is more likely to be seen by someone that could answer your question.

[ladydesire]

traversc wrote...

I notice you didn't respond to my post or the response I quoted above. You're attempting to imply that charging $5 for DLC is
dishonest and exorbitant. That assumption is not only baseless but
misleading. The only logic you have to support your argument is an
incredibly subjective and without any supporting data.

...you're so fixated on one concept, length = value...

There are two things you are misrepresenting/misunderstanding about my argument:
1) I am not implying that they are exorbitant, I am directly stating it.  It is not an assumption, nor is it baseless, but a conclusion based on sampling technique of any given variable.  Nothing I have stated here is in any way subjective.

Ever hear the phrase "Return on Investment"? When you spend a large amount of time creating something (like a video game) the publisher knows that there is no way that they will be able to quickly recover what they have spent in the production of the game, so they price it so that people will buy it and do so for as long as it is kept on the market.
 

2) Neither am I "fixated" on length = value.  I'm not saying that there is 100% correlation between length of play and amount of content.  It's perfectly possible to use another variable; if you believe that the length of play variable is anti-correlated,
choose another.  For example, another good point brought up by someon
else is production time.  You only need look at how fast they are
chruning out DLCs (several months) as opposed to DA:Os production (7? years).

 

They still have to pay the developers that work on it the same wage, no matter if it is a full game, expansion pack or DLC; they also still have to pay the other people directly involved in the development of any game content like QA and marketing. I have more to say, but that's covered below.

Re: cost of product to produce and profit:
At first glance, the cost of developing content has gone down compared to when they first started working on DLCs.  This could be wrong due to say, salary increases.  Others have argued this point, but it is pretty safe to say that it has not changed by a significant order.  Therefore, if you truly believe that selling DLCs at the same payscale would not be profitable, you are basically saying that there is massive overhead in publishing DLC content compared to publishing boxed games.  If that is indeed the case, then BW is doing (additional) disservice to its customers by going this route.

You're cutting out a few middle men by creating DLC (you con't have to
pay anyone to produce installation media or package it), but it does
not mean that there is no overhead involved; I'm quite sure that
Microsoft (XBox Live) and Sony (Playstation Network) get a cut of the
cost of the DLC sold to console gamers. EA makes more from selling it
to the PC crowd (since they don't have to split the cost with anyone
else) but I'm sure that the cost of running the servers that host the
files and authenticate the DLC doesn't leave nearly the amount to EA
that you think it does. You're also assuming, when you talk about
bundling them to reduce the price, that everyone is going to buy each
one; as Parker Kincaid stated, there are many people that might only be
interested in certain ones and would rather not spend the money for the
bundle when they are only interested in one of them.
 

some more info
http://uk.gamespot.c...ws/6239818.html
makes it sound like EA is pulling the strings not BW.  Sigh.

 

This is supposed to surprise me? EA is the publisher, so naturally they set the price for anything sold. Just because they brought in a $1,000,000 so far (as of the time that was posted) doesn't mean that any of that was profit.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/6/
Penny arcade!  Gets it.  The last frame is telling. 

Poking fun at the in game marketing method that was chosen.

[grieferbastard]

traversc wrote...

II said blah blah blah

There are two things you are misrepresenting/misunderstanding about my argument:
1) I am not implying that they are exorbitant, I am directly stating it.  It is not an assumption, nor is it baseless, but a conclusion based on sampling technique of any given variable.  Nothing I have stated here is in any way subjective. 
2) Neither am I "fixated" on length = value.  I'm not saying that there is 100% correlation between length of play and amount of content.  It's perfectly possible to use another variable; if you believe that the length of play variable is anti-correlated, choose another.  For example, another good point brought up by someon
else is production time.  You only need look at how fast they are
chruning out DLCs (several months) as opposed to DA:Os production (7? years). 

Re: cost of product to produce and profit:
At first glance, the cost of developing content has gone down compared to when they first started working on DLCs.  This could be wrong due to say, salary increases.  Others have argued this point, but it is pretty safe to say that it has not changed by a significant order.  Therefore, if you truly believe that selling DLCs at the same payscale would not be profitable, you are basically saying that there is massive overhead in publishing DLC content compared to publishing boxed games.  If that is indeed the case, then BW is doing (additional) disservice to its customers by going this route. 

some more info
http://uk.gamespot.c...ws/6239818.html
makes it sound like EA is pulling the strings not BW.  Sigh. 

http://www.penny-arc...omic/2009/11/6/
Penny arcade!  Gets it.  The last frame is telling. 

So, you're stating that DLC prices are too high and that, lemme quote you again...

It is not an assumption, nor is it baseless, but a conclusion based on sampling technique of any given variable.

What? It is an assumption. it's also baseless. The justification for your statement is.. based on what sampling technique? 

What are the facts that support you. You linked to a comic strip on PennyArcade and a statement that DA:O DLC has hit a million in sales. How much of that goes to BioWare, EA, MS, Sony? How much does just the bandwidth for supporting what has to approximate 200,000 downloads of a half-gig (Wardens Keep was about a 500 meg download) file?

So, again. The assumptions, and they are assumptions since you have absolutely no data to back up your opinions on production and distribution costs, are baseless.

My opinions, and I do acknowledge they are opinions, are based on facts. Like, for example, production costs:
Console game production costs
IGN reviews game production costs and their rise since 2006

How about profitability of computer games in general?
An excellent review on the gaming market

And, best of all, here's a review of Electronic Arts (who owns BioWare) financial summary. Operating costs, stock market analysis, profit/loss margins for the last couple of years. You know. Financial details.

The cold hard facts

If finance and stock analysis isn't your thing than here's the part I want you to look at. That particular page shows an analysis of several companies; make sure EA is highlighted. In the top left corner are a list of options: Summary, News, Related Companies, Historical Prices and Financials. This link should take you right to financials. You'll see links at the top of the page for quarterly and yearly data. You'll also see some nifty grafts. Please take the time to read them and understand them. When reviewing financials, you'll see bars to represent revenue (money coming in) and net income (money they make above and beyond expenses). Then you'll also see a line tracking, month by month, what the profit as a percentage is. You'll notice how it's all below '0%'. Take some time here, if you don't have a lot of business background than there's no reason any of this should be easy to understand completely without a little research. Not trying to sound like an arrogant prig but understanding the financial bottom line of a business. If nothing else, if you don't already understand it please read up on EBITA. Earnings before the deduction of interest, tax and amortization expenses.

Now, this is critical. There's a hell of a lot more to a businesses bottom line than any one product. It's a multi-billion dollar company and games are a hit-driven business. You make a bunch of money every few years on a particular title and use that income to cover the losses you'll take for the next five years.

Yet you'll notice their quarterly operating expenses generally exceed a billion dollars. So, given that they have to share the profit from DLC with everyone else involved (MS, Sony, distribution costs) do you seriously think a million bucks in sales (not profit but sales) is anything like unresonable pricing?

Sorry for the wall of text everyone but at this point an injection of facts into what is otherwise a flailing mass of assumptions and unrelated details should either end it or move it forward.

I'd like to hope anyway.

[PSUHammer]

Grieferbastard,



Thank you. That was rational and factual. Too many people pop off without a grasp of basic economics or what it takes to run a business. Thanks for the insight and the effort.