635 réponses à ce sujet

[Gatt9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

4. This is a controversial issue, with people who are actually in the business, people like Allan (not Allan necessarily, people LIKE Allan) stating quite plainly that Day 1 DLC is stuff that would not be in the base game. If you ever catch them saying otherwise, tell me, because then I'll be happy to blame them for it. But we have no proof.

I understand the cynicism towards this though, especially if consumer trust is shattered. You'll likely not find anyone (anywhere) going "We intentionally ripped this out for the sole purpose of selling it as DLC" even if that were 100% the truth.

The tricky part of DLC is that it's difficult to really prove one way or another. That is, unless you're actually present at the decision making process, it's hard to definitively state "this content would not exist without DLC" or "This content would have existed without DLC, but because DLC is a concept it has been intentionally removed in order to be monetized."

Even if a DLC concept is created during the earliest stages of preproduction for the base game, it still can't really be said if that concept would or would not be in the game if a DLC model didn't exist. Which makes it tricky.

DLC does provide an additional source of revenue, and it does provide a sense justification for allocating resources. If the budget is expected to be entirely used in one aspect, additional funding can be justified to be applied if the expected return lets it be. This expected return can be in additional sales of the base game, or through other revenue streams, for example.

I find it a grey and muddy matter that is very difficult to get an assessment of from the outside. inXile is pretty proud of their "no DLC" type of stance, but at the same time refusing to do any sort of DLC on principle may result in not delivering content that they'd like to deliver, and may result in fans not getting as much content in a game universe that they enjoy that they otherwise would not get.

Now the optics come down to Day One DLC, which is obviously a subset of DLC. This is about examining the line of critical mass for a DLC release schedules, because the inverse correlation of DLC success vs. time since launch is very strong.

I don't think it does,  the whole pretense for "Day one DLC wasn't cut content" relies on the validation cycle of the platform owners.  Without that delay,  with a release structure such as that for the PC,  this becomes a much more clear picture.  Day 1 DLC would still be present,  because it's a revenue initiative to stealth the price of the game up another $10,  but it would lack the excuse of "These people would be idle for 3 months",  and so be very obvious what the intent is.

For people who are aware of how the Industry has operated over the years,  it's obvious that's what is happening even with the excuse.  The old way of creating games was that pre-production would start on the next title ~6-9 months prior to release,  and when the team was winding down,  those people would be moved over to ramp up production on the next title.  We can see this outlined in the Torment Kickstarter where Fargo talks at length about how they could do two at once.

From what I've seen,  Day 1 DLC is a product of the issues that are dragging the Industry down month after month.  It looks to me like teams are now kept on a product to generate "Revenue initiatives" instead of moving to another product coming out of pre-production,  until the Publisher is able to tell whether or not it's worth generating a sequel in 18 months.  It's symptomatic of the Industry's failure to innovate and it's mindset of redoing the same couple of games endlessly today.

[Lieutenant Kurin]

My two cents (though not really, pennies are discontinued in Canada now, so more like round up to five):
There were those idiots who said vote against EA because gays/bis exist in their video games, and some who thought that DA2 + ME3 + SimCity debacle = bad (which it does) and even some who voted against EA because of the Madden thing. With a mass poll like this, undoubtedly all these were reasons for voting for at least a good fraction of voters. Fine.

But the fact that such overwhelming numbers led EA to be a FINALIST, nevermind winner, should wake EA up. What with microtransactions in Dead Space 3, and an always-on requirement in SimCity, there are serious issues with the way EA has approached games of late. Many games have been rushed, and there is almost no such thing as a $60-$70 EA game anymore. What with not only microtransactions but the ridiculous amount of DLC (especially DAY ONE DLC!), a "full" game can cost about $150. And I wish I was kidding. So, rushed games with super high price tags means that a good amount of people are pissed off.

Moving on, EA fails to realise it's dealing with GAMERS here, possibly the most 'net savvy group when it comes to stuff like this, so undoubtedly it received more voters at all then any other company. That being said, EA's customer service hasn't been good of late, they never apologize (which I get as being not that bad), but fail to ever look at the situation from another view. Or even realise that by bankrupting players, eventually not many will be able to afford games anyway. Personally, this latest Citadel DLC cost me a hi-res photo of my iris (well worth it).

If you can follow all that (or even not), I shall sum it up.

-EA would have won w/o question because its target consumer is, frankly, 'net savvy people. Auto-lose with even minor problems right there, so ignore the win.

-EA is bankrupting players by nickel-and-diming them along with overpriced DLC.

-EA however should get props for including LGBT characters and such. No matter the reason, it takes a lot of guts to do something like that considering the backlash. LGBT rights and acceptance is still a hot-button topic.

-EA has rushed out games too fast (hence, rushed), often sending incomplete and outright repetitive games.

-EA still considers the problems to be minor and doesn't look at things from a consumer perspective.

All that tallied up means, honestly, calling it "Worst Company in America" is ridiculous, but that doesn't change the message. It may take awhile but eventually it's player base will disappear, either through honest complaints and non-playability, or because we all don't have an endless supply of money, and our pocketbook will run out. EA needs to stop thinking short-term and start thinking about staying the long-haul through actively listening and taking player feedback seriously.

[Lieutenant Kurin]

Oh and as for From Ashes (the day 1 DLC for ME3... rhyming win!), there has been proof that a good amount of it was already on disc, it just needed to be unlocked (not kidding, apparently someone found a way to get the pissy Prothean without paying). So yes, definitely was cut to sell as DLC, or possibly because the game needed to be rushed so they just finished it off after the base game (leaving most of it still on disc), and sold it for a high price.

[Ninja Stan]

Kleli wrote...

It's true that I don't work at an EA studio and don't know what they are trying to do to improve. I can only draw my conslusion from the things I've seen as a costumer.
I know he is refering to the other entrants in the poll. But why did he have to chose the worst ones to prove his point?

It's possible that the changes EA is making may not be visible or show visible progress to the average person, since a) people are kind of asking for changes to the way they make games, and results will show up in future games, and EA doesn't generally report to customers. If anything, I think you might see a posy by Mr. Moore some time in the future asking "So, how'd we do?"

Sorry, I was refering to the letter here: http://www.dorkly.co...pany-in-america

The letter in your link has no attribution or link to its source, and looks hella fake. Mr. Moore's actual response was his "We Can Do Better" blog entry.

Saying is one thing but doing is something else. Again I was refering to the COO's response here: http://www.dorkly.co...pany-in-america
The tone in that letter isn't very humble in my opinion.

Your opposition to Mr. Moore's blog seems to be based on two factors. One, you don't believe what he says, and two, you haven't seen any change yet. At the risk of sounding combative, DUH! He's just made his statement and, as I mentioned above, you likely won't see visible change or receive updates to the progress of that change until future games are released. It takes time for a company as large as EA to change the way it does things. Give them some time to do the things they say they're going to do.

And as also mentioned above, that letter you link to was not penned by Mr. Moore.

I would say that disagreeing with Peter Moore's statements does not necessarily mean that you are right and he is wrong, or that because you disagree, he must not know why you disagree. Most of the people disagreeing with Mr. Moore are emotional, reactionary, and using subjective and anecdotal evidence to "prove" their claims, while it is very likely that EA has better, more substantive ways of finding out how many people are dissatisfied and why. As many people like to point out, EA is not a person. It is a company. Mr. Moore is speaaking not just for himself, but on behalf of all 8000 EA employees. It would be unfair to imply that none of those 8000 people have any idea what they're talking about when it comes to their own company.

I'm a little biased because I used to work for EA, but I am often willing to give companies the benefit of the doubt when they release statements like the blog entry Peter Moore wrote (not the one you linked to, but the one on EA's own website).

[Steelcan]

@Ninja Stan, but corporations are people too!

Modifié par Steelcan, 11 avril 2013 - 12:40 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't think it does, the whole pretense for "Day one DLC wasn't cut content" relies on the validation cycle of the platform owners. Without that delay, with a release structure such as that for the PC, this becomes a much more clear picture. Day 1 DLC would still be present, because it's a revenue initiative to stealth the price of the game up another $10, but it would lack the excuse of "These people would be idle for 3 months", and so be very obvious what the intent is.

For people who are aware of how the Industry has operated over the years, it's obvious that's what is happening even with the excuse. The old way of creating games was that pre-production would start on the next title ~6-9 months prior to release, and when the team was winding down, those people would be moved over to ramp up production on the next title. We can see this outlined in the Torment Kickstarter where Fargo talks at length about how they could do two at once.

DLC in general is a form of risk mitigation in leveraging an existing title for additional revenues with lesser overall costs compared to a full game. We could transition our teams over onto a new project, but that comes at the opportunity cost of providing content for the current game through post release content for it. I don't think it comes at a huge surprise, but DLC is created in large part to help make money.

What Fargo did with his team was take his current staffers, and rather than get funding to work on DLC, he got funding to work on a different game. Both solutions are viable, and both are done to ensure staff isn't sitting idle.

As for the "cut content" perspective, doing what you suggest would simply mean that instead of From Ashes existing and being released at Day One, some other project would have been worked on instead. If DLC (as in the incremental updates) didn't exist at all, post release content would either need to be packaged as an expansion pack.


I think a better example would probably be Tales of the Sword Coast for Baldur's Gate. Instead of sitting idle, they started their work on Tales of the Sword Coast expansion. In it, they were able to bring back in a lot of cut content since those ideas were already in place, and they were delivered as an expansion pack. Alternatively, had a DLC model existed back then, it may have been possible to split the Tales of Sword Coast expansion pack into smaller deliverables, which would have meant that some of the content would have been delivered sooner (perhaps even day one, perhaps not).

[Allan Schumacher]

Sorry, I was refering to the letter here: http://www.dorkly.co...pany-in-america

I just read this after reading Stan's post. I am pretty sure that this is fake as well. Dorkly watermarked the image, and my assumption is that it's Dorkly that made it.

[Asch Lavigne]

I wonder how many people are saying "EA is the worst" because of ME3's ending. Which is silly because EA did not write the ending. If ME3's ending was satisfactory I wonder how different people's opinions would be.

Also, I agree with views that EA is not great, but not the worst company either. Not even the worst gaming company, in my opinion.

[Steelcan]

Yes that response is a fake. However the real response is no less atrocious. The real response attempted to place the blame for EA's "win" on homophobic right wingers who voted against EA because of the inclusion of gay characters.

The actual response is just a clear cut attempt to try and shift the blame to others, and to promise to do better.

[Steelcan]

Asch Lavigne wrote...

I wonder how many people are saying "EA is the worst" because of ME3's ending. Which is silly because EA did not write the ending. If ME3's ending was satisfactory I wonder how different people's opinions would be.

Also, I agree with views that EA is not great, but not the worst company either. Not even the worst gaming company, in my opinion.

. The most listed reason for EA's 'victory' are its
-DRM practices
-Microtransactions
-SimCity 5 launch
-perceived decrease in quality of games

[addiction21]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Sorry, I was refering to the letter here: http://www.dorkly.co...pany-in-america

I just read this after reading Stan's post. I am pretty sure that this is fake as well. Dorkly watermarked the image, and my assumption is that it's Dorkly that made it.

It is fake. 100% Dorkly says it somewhere else on the site.

But that is the best part of it. Go look at the comments. People are all to happy to take such non-sense like it came straight from EA. It's not like they twist every single interview or press release into... well just what you see there.

[Ninja Stan]

Cyonan wrote...

I'm pretty sure they meant Origin Systems rather than Origin, which was a company that EA bought back in the 90s that is now disbanded.

Westwood has to do with EA because EA also bought them in the 90s, and they are also shut down.

Both get used in the argument against EA.

Whenever that happens, I bring up EA LA and EA Canada, both of which were also acquisitions that have been around for many years. What some people seem to forget is that studios close all the time, and EA has no obligation to keep someone's favourite studio open, especially if that studio isn't performing or if another department is already doing the same kind of work.

If people want to ensure a given studio stays open, support them by buying their games or spend millions of dollars to buy the studio itself and keep it running. EA shouldn't hemorrhage money on a losing proposition just to keep fans (who, by the way, are doing nothing to help out) happy. (NOTE: I cannot say for certain why Westwood or Origin Systems was closed, but EA would not have closed them just to be a douche to gamers.)

See also this 2005 Escapist article on Origin Systems.

That said, some people will argue that anything that is finished prior to the game launching should be included in the base game rather than being paid day 1 DLC, even if as a "you only get this if you buy a new copy rather than used" deal, kind of like Zaeed was.

This is usually a case of a gamer not knowing how game development works and what kind of lead time a game needs in order to make it onto store shelves on time. Games usually need to be completely finished two months before its release date. What goes on the disc has to be finalized and locked in so that the complete product can be tested by the publisher and so that it can be sent to the console manufacturers to ensure they meet all technical requirements. This is the Certification process (or "cert"), and it costs money every time the product has to be sent to cert. If the game fails cert, problems must be fixed before being sent again.

Day 1 DLC is usually intended to come out at the same time as the main game. The cert process for a digital download-only product is far less time consuming, since there's no manufactuting required. You input your authorization, and boom, the package is downloaded and integrated with your game.

Because there is a vastly reduced cert process, work on Day 1 DLC can continue in the 1-2 months when the disc is in certification and manufacturing. Any attempt to put DLC on the disc during this time means stopping the cert process and starting over, which costs a lot of time (since Microsoft and Sony have to schedule cert testing time amid all the other games being released at the same time) and could mean missing the release window, and a whole bunch of money, as in thousands and thousands of dollars.

Stuff like Javik gets a little grey though. It's certainly not mandatory to Mass Effect 3, but being the story based series that it is throwing something at us like a Prothean which you know is going have a lot of good lore bits included in it starts to get people feeling like they do need it.

Gamers wouldn't have much incentive to buy DLC contained only content they don't really want. The fact it feels like content they need is precisely the selling point. This doesn't mean, however, that it was meant to be included in the base game, or that it is absolutely required to complete the base game. It also doesn't mean that gamers are entitled to this content in the first place.

I hope that helps.

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 11 avril 2013 - 01:19 .

[Ninja Stan]

Steelcan wrote...

Yes that response is a fake. However the real response is no less atrocious. The real response attempted to place the blame for EA's "win" on homophobic right wingers who voted against EA because of the inclusion of gay characters.

The actual response is just a clear cut attempt to try and shift the blame to others, and to promise to do better.

Again, Peter Moore did not place all the blame on "homophobic right wingers." He stated that those people contributed to the votes, but that some of the complaints were legitimate and that some of the reasons for voting for EA (he listed several) were, in his opinion, not legitimate.

[Lunch Box1912]

^  ?  ^  Oh thats wierd that was blank a minute ago... I thought you ninja'd yourself.   lol

Modifié par Lunch Box1912, 11 avril 2013 - 03:17 .

[Degs29]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The tricky part of DLC is that it's difficult to really prove one way or another. That is, unless you're actually present at the decision making process, it's hard to definitively state "this content would not exist without DLC" or "This content would have existed without DLC, but because DLC is a concept it has been intentionally removed in order to be monetized."

Even if a DLC concept is created during the earliest stages of preproduction for the base game, it still can't really be said if that concept would or would not be in the game if a DLC model didn't exist. Which makes it tricky.

That's exactly the problem with the DLC model:  it makes it incredibly easy for developers to exploit their customers.  Not that that's what's happening now,  but the mechanism is now in place and it's difficult (if not impossible) from our side of things to know whether it's occurring or not.  That leads to an unhealthy amount of suspicion.

[Allan Schumacher]

Degs29 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The tricky part of DLC is that it's difficult to really prove one way or another. That is, unless you're actually present at the decision making process, it's hard to definitively state "this content would not exist without DLC" or "This content would have existed without DLC, but because DLC is a concept it has been intentionally removed in order to be monetized."

Even if a DLC concept is created during the earliest stages of preproduction for the base game, it still can't really be said if that concept would or would not be in the game if a DLC model didn't exist. Which makes it tricky.

That's exactly the problem with the DLC model:  it makes it incredibly easy for developers to exploit their customers.  Not that that's what's happening now,  but the mechanism is now in place and it's difficult (if not impossible) from our side of things to know whether it's occurring or not.  That leads to an unhealthy amount of suspicion.

I agree that this is a huge potential risk.  THere's certainly an optics issue, and it could very well be that, even if you can make a DLC to go with release, it may need to be structured differently (maybe more like DAO), or simply just released a short time after release.

If we start running into really extreme cases where entire games are effectively unplayable without DLCs and the like, then DLC bridges will get burned and it'll become something more like Kickstarter, in that you're going to need some level of reputation in order to successfully apply DLC to your game.

[addiction21]

Degs29 wrote...

from our side of things to know whether it's occurring or not.  That leads to an unhealthy amount of suspicion.

Yes it is but way to many gamers want to immediately declare that is always the case. Everywhere and all the time and it should be free because "it was part of the game and cut" or "they are nickel and diming us" or "it was made concurrently with the game so it should be free"

It's why I generally scoff at such statements like "well if they change I will give them another chance or think differently" But they were never willing in the first place.

Deadspace 3. A "bug" was found that allowed anyone to farm the materials for the crafting. Unlimited. At first it was met with praise and cheers. Some going as far as thanking whatever testers let that pass and how EA will patch that out as soon as possible. EA then says it was intended and those that want to take the time to do it are fine. Then came the cry of "well its just PR" which it was but really?

Gamers can not continue with the "damned if you do damned if you don't and damned just because I don't like you" approach.

I am a gamer and why should I want to be when that's the attitude? When the outside view us as petty, petulant, entitled children and the loudest mouths around continue to reinforce that stereotype.

edit: 
Sorry about the ranting its not directed at you.

Modifié par addiction21, 11 avril 2013 - 02:12 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Celcore wrote...

But what cause these companies to Start "hemorrhaging money" in the first place. Though Correlation isn't causation its hard to ignore the how many companies start to fail after being acquired by EA. EA's business model seems to be more of a game making assembly line that with a steady flow of products at minimum standards. I remember the done when its done mentality Bioware used to have when it comes to their games, and that resulted in quality product. Now it Bioware has switch to a get it done and out on time and fix it in post mentality which I feel has lowered the standard.    

Origin was hemorrhaging money before they were bought by EA. They were their own publisher at the time, and they needed money quite badly. Perhaps you didn't know, but Bioware was in much the same situation - the products were quality, but the company itself was losing money and struggling to keep afloat. That's why Bioware went to Elevation Partners. Elevation Partners is a private equity firm, which is a financial institution that buys huge stakes in ailing companies and attempts to fix them and make them profitable.

If you read the linked article, you would see that at the beginning, EA gave Origin plenty of slack. It was only after Origin cancelled multiple projects and repeatedly failed to deliver on time and on budget that EA stepped in to start micromanaging. The general developer/publisher relationship today is the same - as long as the studio delivers what they promise, the publisher is fine with leaving them be. If the studio can't or won't deliver, then the publisher steps in. This tends to happens with any publisher - you can check out the development history of LA Noire (Take 2 Interactive), Tabula Rasa (NCSoft), or Daikatana (Eidos).

I'm not saying that EA itself wasn't the pit of doom in the 2000-2006 era. I know it most certainly was. But those studios who went to work with EA did alright until they messed up on their own. It was only then the devil came calling. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Celcore wrote...

See I think you're already at the point, Look at my comment above. Clearly the multiplayer in ME3 was just designed to be a money making engine.

I think that this perspective is overly dismissive towards people that enjoy the multiplayer.  You talk about psychological feedback loops as if they were only considered during the design of the multiplayer, and not the rest of the game.  This isn't true.

If you want to be ultracynical, the whole game was designed to be a money making engine.

[Allan Schumacher]

It certainly was designed to generate money. It certainly helps mitigate risks. And yes, the Multiplayer DLC can be free because of it (otherwise we would not be allowed to release it for free on the consoles).

I wonder if, given your deduction, people might actually recognize that the idea that multiplayer may have been created not necessarily at the expense of single player, since it provides a more consistent source of revenue and as such, can better justify financing.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 11 avril 2013 - 02:36 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Celcore wrote...

EA is definitely not hands off with the companies it acquires, as I stated with the changes in Bioware production Schedules and Microtransaction in its new games after the acquisition, Thats classic EA. The always On Simcity Servers, EA, Turning the Sims into a DLC store. These were profitable before and EA just aquired them to turn them again into money generators. 

I agree that changing production schedules to ship on time is classic EA. The lack of following production schedules also what was causing Origin and Bioware to literally lose millions of dollars and head toward bankruptcy. Making products ship on time is important. Neither Origin, nor Bioware was particularly good at it. In fact, to this day DA2 remains the only Bioware game to ever ship on time.

What about the other stuff that you say is "classic EA"? What other EA games have randomized skinner box microtransactions? I'm pretty sure that Bioware came up with that on its own.  

How did they turn the Sims into a DLC store? The Sims actually didn't do DLC for years. I know folks who worked on the Sims, they spent years on a 6 month cycle creating traditional retail expansion packs for the Sims 2 and 3. Is this somehow... a bad thing? Creating more content for people who want it? 

But then again, let's take a look at your example here... Maxis was acquired by EA in 1997, where it was in financial trouble due to several failed projects (SimCopter, Crystal Skull). The Sims didn't come out until 2000, and EA then funded them and were hands-off for quite some time (letting them do what they wanted with Spore, which was in development for at least 5 years and had many development issues). Maxis got to work on Spore, and EA created the Sims Studio to work on additional content and additional sims work.

But... yeah. Making games come out on time and on budget is a bad thing, and making a company profitable (i.e. sustainable) is evil. Gotcha.