54 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

slimgrin wrote...

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.

I rarely play DLC.  Unfortunately, for me, when I've moved on past a game it's very unlikely for me to pick up DLC.

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

I've seen people state that they felt Leviathan was vital to the story of ME3 and should have found a way to be included in the base game.

[Allan Schumacher]

Besides, what you're talking about is completely irrelevant. There is no benefit to forcing a digital distribution system on gamers--outside of company exposure, outside of enticing them to spend more--there isn't any software benefit. There's little, if any, user benefit. The analogy is poor.

There's huge benefits for the developer. Digital distribution is pretty much the primary reason why independent games can become so prolific. As a gamer, if we were restricted purely to boxed goods, our selection in games would be more limited. Things like Project Eternity, Wasteland 2, and Torment would probably not exist. We'd certainly have less influences from various game styles that even make their way up and into the "AAA" titles.

Digital distribution is a huge risk mitigation, and stating that those smaller developers shouldn't force their customers to accept that digital is the avenue for delivery is too restrictive towards them, in my opinion. Many of them would never have been able to realistically deliver their games without incurring significant amounts of additional debt in order to finance manufacturing and distribution.

[Allan Schumacher]

If DLC has less overall costs compared to the base game, why is it so damn expensive? It's usually between 2 or 3 times more expensive then base game content on a per hour basis.

I don't know what specifically motivates that specific price point, but in the end prices are set because it's what companies feel will get them maximum return on investment.

Ideally its set right at a point of perfect price inelasticity. That is, if they raise or lower the price, ultimately the get less total revenue.

As for why it can be $10 or $15, part of the advantage of it is simply because that price point is not very high.

I remember running an adult computer literacy course at a local school in 2000. My original price point was a mere $2 for an hour long sesson. The Principal said "People aren't going to split hairs over $2 compared to $5. Just charge $5 and in the end it'll be easier for you to deal with as you won't have to deal with as much change and whatnot." class enrollment rates didn't change despite the 150% increase in price. I probably could have gone higher, but it wasn't really a venture to raise money. (It was part of a government initiative to help provide basic training and access to computers and the internet to the community).

[Allan Schumacher]

Degs29 wrote...

What if you offered this computer literacy course at $2 per hour.  Once completed, you then decided to offer a short extended course.  This course offers more of the same for those who want to cover more ground.  You priced this course at $5 per hour.  Your don't think people would question that?

It'd probably depend on how much value they felt they got within the session.  The absolute cost is still low, and if anyone balked at the price they could simply decide to not attend.

People could very well go "I guess the $2 price point wasn't viable for what he was doing."  People may have gotten upset.  They also may not have cared.