635 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

bobobo878 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

wafflez wrote...
^ Bethesda has microtransactions?

I counted stuff like Horse Armor as a microtrans. You can lump that in with DLC instead, if you prefer.

That was 7 years ago though, I haven't seen anything like it in Fallout 3, NV, or Skyrim and I don't see any reason to hold a grudge forever.

In a thread where people have already brought up Origin Systems, Westwood, and Bullfrog studios, I would say it is entirely reasonable to bring up Horse Armor.  If you wish to exclude Bethesda from the list of microtrans publishers, that's fine. That still leaves Ubisoft, Capcom, Activision, Square-Enix, Valve, Funcom, NCSoft, and others in addition to EA who also do microtransactions.

Edit for clarity: In the original thread, the poster I was responding to used microtransactions (along with other commonly-used business models) as an example of why EA should be the worst company in America. I brought up a list of other publishers that also do similar tactics, and somebody disagreed with my inclusion of Bethesda in the list of microtransaction publishers. If you wish to exclude them, that's fine. The point still stands, though - EA is hardly alone in doing microtransactions.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 13 avril 2013 - 02:17 .

[Brockololly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Though the Horse Armor example does illustrate that, in many ways, DLC as post release content is still going through various levels of experimentation.  I think it's safe to conclude that the reaction (and presumed lack of success) for something like Horse Armor has helped motivate Bethesda to not do something like that again.

Its funny. Bethesda and the Horse Armor was in many ways ahead of its time since that was basically one of the first instances of a relatively cheap microtransaction. And now we have a lot of games (I'm thinking BioWare specifically) that do those microtransaction type DLC armor or weapon packs.

And yet you look at Bethesda's DLC offerings and from Oblivion to now with Skyrim, they're primarily offering much more substantial expansion pack type DLC that comes out well after Day 1.

Personally, those types of expansion pack level DLC content are what I'd prefer from DLC.

[ObserverStatus]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

wafflez wrote...
^ Bethesda has microtransactions?

I counted stuff like Horse Armor as a microtrans. You can lump that in with DLC instead, if you prefer.

That was 7 years ago though, I haven't seen anything like it in Fallout 3, NV, or Skyrim and I don't see any reason to hold a grudge forever.

In a thread where people have already brought up Origin Systems, Westwood, and Bullfrog studios, I would say it is entirely reasonable to bring up Horse Armor.  If you wish to exclude Bethesda from the list of microtrans publishers, that's fine. That still leaves Ubisoft, Capcom, Activision, Square-Enix, Valve, Funcom, NCSoft, and others in addition to EA who also do microtransactions.
Edit for clarity: In the original thread, the poster I was responding to used microtransactions (along with other commonly-used business models) as an example of why EA should be the worst company in America. I brought up a list of other publishers that also do similar tactics, and somebody disagreed with my inclusion of Bethesda in the list of microtransaction publishers. If you wish to exclude them, that's fine. The point still stands, though - EA is hardly alone in doing microtransactions.

That's better. The fact that Nintendo and Bethesda are the only ones not doing it doesn't make microtransactions in full priced games any less tacky.

[Addai]

If all devs did DLC like Bethesda does it, there would be no issue.

[slimgrin]

Addai67 wrote...

If all devs did DLC like Bethesda does it, there would be no issue.

Bethesda's DLC puts anything by Bioware to shame. 

[ObserverStatus]

slimgrin wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
If all devs did DLC like Bethesda does it, there would be no issue.

Bethesda's DLC puts anything by Bioware to shame. 

Nah, not really, Bethesda has made some good expansions, but nothing that quite measures up to Dragon Age Origins: Awakerning. Not that I didn't like "Old World Blues" that was excellent too.

[Maverick827]

Brockololly wrote...

Personally, those types of expansion pack level DLC content are what I'd prefer from DLC.

I like both.  In fact, I think BioWare is narrowing in on the perfect balance.  Bigger DLC like LotSB, Citadel, and Leviathan exist alongside small weapon and armor packs and I, personally, don't see any issues.  I think they just need to work on consistency for the story DLC now.  

I'm very picky with armor and weapons: a single armor or weapon model/texture can make or break a character for me.  My next ME trilogy play through is 75% based around actually using the Blood Dragon armor this time.  Even the mechanics of an item can matter, like the Mattock.  Because of this, I'll take any extra variety I can get.

The absolute best solution is to support moding, which Frostbite 3 might not allow for.  Personally, I'd rather have a top of the line engine and pay $2 for an armor pack than have an old and busted engine but free armor packs that will, if we're being honest, be comprised mostly of chainmail bikinis.

slimgrin wrote...

Bethesda's DLC puts anything by Bioware to shame. 

I disagree.  I mean no offense to Bathesda, but their games, and thus their DLC, are very plug and play.  Every mission uses essentially the same mechanics.  There are quest triggers, quest objectives, and that's about it.  Go to [Location], [Kill/Loot] an [Enemy/Item], and then return to the quest giver.  They have a small handful of voice actors and it doesn't sound like they have them do many takes.  

BioWare, by comparison, creates involved scenes and elaborate set pieces.  The Shadow Broker's ship and underwater in Leviathan are very different than anything in the main game.  Bathesda DLC, on the other hand, are mostly comprised of re-skins and some minor new models.  The level of voice acting between the two isn't even comparable.  Bathesda makes a lot of generic things, BioWare makes a few focused things.

Modifié par Maverick827, 13 avril 2013 - 03:40 .

[Homebound]

[Spam post removed.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 13 avril 2013 - 08:27 .

[KDD-0063]

Ironically EA should probably be glad that they got the prize.

Last year's prize is understandable, with SWTOR and ME3 both deliver disappointments, at least at the time, the gamers would be enraged. And there are so many gamers voting that EA won the prize over arguably worse companies like BoA.

It shows that a) gamers are unhappy and gamers are playing EA games.

This year? I don't know what enraged the players so much, but ... it shows that players are still playing EA games a lot.

[AshedMan]

KDD-0063 wrote...
This year? I don't know what enraged the players so much, but ... it shows that players are still playing EA games a lot.

Dead Space 3 and SimCity.  

[Gatt9]

slimgrin wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

If all devs did DLC like Bethesda does it, there would be no issue.

Bethesda's DLC puts anything by Bioware to shame. 

I'm assuming you're referring to bug counts?  Because the only thing they release other than bugs are endless rehashes of The Elder Scrolls:  Arena,  generally with fewer features in each release.

Ironically EA should probably be glad that they got the prize.

Last year's prize is understandable, with SWTOR and ME3 both deliver disappointments, at least at the time, the gamers would be enraged. And there are so many gamers voting that EA won the prize over arguably worse companies like BoA.

It shows that a) gamers are unhappy and gamers are playing EA games.

This year? I don't know what enraged the players so much, but ... it shows that players are still playing EA games a lot.

Gamers have been trying to tell EA they don't like the DLC/Micro-transaction policies,  or the "Everything must be made for the casual" mantra that has defined EA for the past few years.

EA's response is generally to release PR that trumpets "DLC/Micro-transactions are the future!" and offering paper-thing excuses for "Streamlining" all of their games.

Basically,  EA's been thumbing their nose at Gamers for the last year,  apparently thinking they could force Gamers to embrace their revenue-initiative laden plan.  It's backfiring,  and they're rapidly approaching the point where it won't matter what they release,  they'll have completely alienated gamers. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Brockololly wrote...

Its funny. Bethesda and the Horse Armor was in many ways ahead of its time since that was basically one of the first instances of a relatively cheap microtransaction. And now we have a lot of games (I'm thinking BioWare specifically) that do those microtransaction type DLC armor or weapon packs.

And yet you look at Bethesda's DLC offerings and from Oblivion to now with Skyrim, they're primarily offering much more substantial expansion pack type DLC that comes out well after Day 1.

I don't disagree.  In some ways Bethesda helped spearhead it.  I always see DLC such as that as purely cosmetic and wholly uninteresting, but I know that those types of things are pretty easy to create, so the investment in creating them is a fraction of what the larger, content expansions tend to be.  Though they are also typically cheaper, so it's mostly just a different type.  I assume that since they keep getting made, on some level they are sufficiently profitable.

Although I think you can also look at the Premium Modules of NWN as another thing that is rather "ahead of its time."  I don't know what reception really was (I had long since moved on), but I'll bet the idea struck up some discussions.


Going back to Bethesda, however, their DLC model at the moment has been mostly just a digital distribution of the older style expansion packs.  I'm curious if that changes going forward, with their statement of supporting Day One DLC, or if it was more just a message of solidarity between other game studios.

Personally, those types of expansion pack level DLC content are what I'd prefer from DLC.

Agreed 1000x over.  Although having said that I still haven't bought many DLC in my life.

I picked up ME3s after hearing about the Citadel buzz
Picked up Fallout New Vegas' as I heard good things (and felt the itch to play it again)
Picked up Shogun 2's (although Fall of the Samurai was more standalone IIRC)

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 avril 2013 - 05:47 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I disagree. I mean no offense to Bathesda, but their games, and thus their DLC, are very plug and play. Every mission uses essentially the same mechanics. There are quest triggers, quest objectives, and that's about it. Go to [Location], [Kill/Loot] an [Enemy/Item], and then return to the quest giver. They have a small handful of voice actors and it doesn't sound like they have them do many takes.

BioWare, by comparison, creates involved scenes and elaborate set pieces. The Shadow Broker's ship and underwater in Leviathan are very different than anything in the main game. Bathesda DLC, on the other hand, are mostly comprised of re-skins and some minor new models. The level of voice acting between the two isn't even comparable. Bathesda makes a lot of generic things, BioWare makes a few focused things.

Shadow Broker is probably our best one (which is funny as I haven't played it >.>).


I think a large part of whether or not one would like Bethesda's DLC is in large part motivated by what you hope to get out of Skyrim. If you love the exploration aspects of it, plopping down a new area "plug and play" style is probably still going to feel pretty awesome.

For myself, their DLC is pretty inconsequential because I don't actually own Skyrim! Haha. Still waiting for it to come down in price a sufficient amount. (it's on my Steam wishlist)

[Fortlowe]

2k Games seems to have gotten a knack for getting their devs to drop good DLC, especially with the Borderlands franchise. Bioshock's Minerva's Den was incredible. Rockstar is on board as well. Both GTA IV's DLC's were good. Red Dead's Unread Nightmare was great, too.

[slimgrin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Shadow Broker is probably our best one (which is funny as I haven't played it >.>).

Jesus man..really? Because it really is the best one.

Modifié par slimgrin, 13 avril 2013 - 06:19 .

[LTD]

I says ideal DLC makes an addition that morphs itself seamlessly as a part of the original campaign.  In best case scenario, there never is some overly obvious boundary to cross when moving back and forth between vanilla content and DLC content. In this situation, my brain doesn't have to start up with My Experience playing DLC vs. My Experience Playing The Original Game  - comparsions.

As long as we speak of typical RPG with typical 150 min lasting DLC, I always much dislike seperate mini campaigns,stand alone "morning after" quests and suches.

Modifié par LTD, 13 avril 2013 - 07:46 .

[Dagr88]

LTD wrote...

I says ideal DLC makes an addition that morphs itself seamlessly as a part of the original campaign.

"Why it wasn't in the game to begin with!!! Money grabers!!! It's all AE's fault!!! ...!!! ...!!!" And so on.


Post ending DLCs FTW. Harder to execute, but no one (ok... there always will be someone) will complain that it should have been in the vanilla version.

Modifié par Dagr88, 13 avril 2013 - 07:49 .

[LTD]

^ Can't see how and why anyone would make such argument. It isn't exclusively day 0 DLC we speak of here.

Modifié par LTD, 13 avril 2013 - 07:50 .

[Dagr88]

LTD wrote...

^ Can't see how and why anyone would make such argument. It isn't exclusively day 0 DLC we speak of here.

Neither am I.

Example: Leviathan.

[LTD]

New slice to main game created post-release, during seperate development push should have been part of main game because ..? No sense in this.

[legion999]

bobobo878 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
If all devs did DLC like Bethesda does it, there would be no issue.

Bethesda's DLC puts anything by Bioware to shame. 

Nah, not really, Bethesda has made some good expansions, but nothing that quite measures up to Dragon Age Origins: Awakerning. Not that I didn't like "Old World Blues" that was excellent too.

Really? I found Awakening to be a buggy mess. More so than Dawnguard and Dragonborn. And to be pedantic Obsidian made Old World Blues not Bethesda.

[Ravensword]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Hoorayforicecream would hardly be the only person that discusses this topic that would be holding a grudge for the sake of argument.

Though the Horse Armor example does illustrate that, in many ways, DLC as post release content is still going through various levels of experimentation.  I think it's safe to conclude that the reaction (and presumed lack of success) for something like Horse Armor has helped motivate Bethesda to not do something like that again.

True enough, but at least it was enough to get Bethesda from trying something like that again.

Now we can hope that there is no day-one DLC for DA3, especially given the reaction was to it

Also, about this whole Comsumerist poll, EA should'nt have bothered responding to it after winning WCIA the award for the second time. A lotta people thought that they could influence EA through this poll, but I don't think much is gonna come of it.

I know that this has been brought up in this thread, but I'd like to bring up the fake response from Dorkly. I wish that this was Peter Moore's response to the poll. I like it not b/c I think it's kind of poignant, true, and certainly a lot better than shifting the blame on a few homophobes. I know that the Consumerist poll has to do w/ customer satisfaction and not on which company is the most evil. Just look at the other contestants w/ the exception of BofA.

The fact is EA is gonna do what is most profitable regardless if it results in a mediocre product or not. They'll keep making series like ME or DA more and more streamlined to appeal to the casual gamer. EA also makes huge profits from their sports titles and Battlefield Medal of Duty games, so even if people who are dissatisfied w/ EA manage to organize a boycott of their products, there are way more satisfied EA customers out there.

[spacehamsterZH]

LTD wrote...

New slice to main game created post-release, during seperate development push should have been part of main game because ..? No sense in this.

Leviathan was very clearly meant to be part of the vanilla game at some point and was then removed for... whatever reason. Far be it from me to suspect EA of having rushed development. But the fact of the matter is that a) Leviathan explains a lot about the ending and doesn't at all seem like a retcon and perhaps more importantly, the Leviathan of Dis research project that's the starting point of the Leviathan plot is directly referenced by Balak in his sidequest that IS part of the original game. So while it's impossible to say how much of Leviathan was finished when ME3 came out and how much of it was originally meant to be part of the vanilla game (my guess is it was going to be a fair bit shorter, probably at least without the detective stuff at Bryson's lab), it's definitely something that was pulled at some point, and it seems like a fairly significant part of the storyline. Playing through ME3 now with Leviathan almost makes the ending seem like it makes sense.