307 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

DLC is a tremendous advantage of video games a storytelling medium. It would be a tragic waste to not use it.

[Iakus]

Bleachrude wrote...

Modius Prime wrote...

 I used to miss it when games actually felt complete when you beat it >.>
<_<

That's because back then games didnt have the internet (where you can find out everything that ws on disc) or DLCs (expansion packs were usually months after the game released and thus you had long finished it).


Of course, what gets ignored is that many of those older games ALSO had things left on the cutting room floor...main difference being that companies, due to limitations on disc size were more likely to "clean" up after themselves.

e.g  Zelda, ocarina of Time, regularly gets put in the "Greatest videogames of all time" category and usually in the top 5 and at the time of the release people consdiered it a full game.

Now, with various ROM hackers, we know for a fact that's not even close to true...there's about 4-6 hours of content still on the disc that Nintendo (Miyamoto is insistent on only shipping Zelda or Mario when HE thinks it is good and ready...Nintendo NEVER pushes him on this) never released.

There's a great site called the cutting room floor that shows how much content used to be left on disc but that we as players never knew about because of no DLCs in the past.

I also attribute it to the general shortening of rpgs in general.  Truly massive rpgs like the Baldur's Gate games, where completionist runs can take 50 hours or more are now extremely rare without a full DLC cycle behind it (and not even then much of the time)  They feel incomplete because they take such a short time to finish.

Modifié par iakus, 24 avril 2013 - 01:11 .

[David7204]

That's what happens when it costs a hell of lot more money to make the same length of content.

Players in general would have a lot more credibility for this sort of thing if they didn't constantly whine that every developer and publisher is nothing but a money-grubbing selfish greedy ****** out to gauge them, and that any developer who can't produce very high quality bug-free content of consierable length for 60 bucks must just be lazy. I would gladly pay hundreds of dollars for a AAA product of very long length, a great story, and choices that matter heavily.

Modifié par David7204, 24 avril 2013 - 01:19 .

[chemiclord]

David7204 wrote...

DLC is a tremendous advantage of video games a storytelling medium. It would be a tragic waste to not use it.

I think DLC that adds to a core experience can be great.  I think DLC that provides a side story detached from the core experience can be great.

DLC that "fixes" or "changes" that core experience makes me VERY wary however.  Leviathan toes that line (or crosses it depending on your level of cynicism) and the Extended Cut takes a flying leap over it (fortunately it was free).

Stuff like "Broken Steel" makes me realize, however, that my worry has already been realized, and we're going to start to see more of this phenomenon... that game companies realize they can indeed get away with selling an incomplete experience, and charge the customer more money later to "fix" it.

[David7204]

Players whine when developers release DLC to fix problems with the game, and they whine when developers don't release DLC to fix problems with the game.

Modifié par David7204, 24 avril 2013 - 01:18 .

[crimzontearz]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Uhhhhhhhhhh

Sooooo if from ashes was written after certification send out WHY was the prothean in the original script leak?

Because they toyed with the idea of a prothean role, obviously.

Not that the original script was actually a script, or even original: it was a draft, not a finalized document. Having an outline (that ended up changing) planned in advance doesn't mean most the DLC writing couldn't occur afterwards. By the nature of a planning cycle, the script writing would kind of have to go after the planning outline.

Also....EC bittage size limit? UHHHHH you guys made SINGLE IMAGES SLIDESHOWS into movies that ate up insane space W....T....F?

They also made (and remade) movies, dialogue, and expanded cinematics. Who, besides you, is saying the slide show images took up insane space?

I have a very simple rule of thumb about day 0 DLC...it is about budget...Bioware will not answer questions about it so...

So you could be as wrong as you want, and they'd never correct you?

Secondly, there was a thread about it last year when people datamined the EC, those sequences are humongous, a waste of space really

If they understood it correctly, sure.

yep....when I asked as a matter of curiosity about ethics I was told it was none of my business......verbatim

they likely did

[Bleachrude]

Eh...not so sure I would sing the praises of older RPG games being longer...

A lot of it was because you HAD to grind. You had to be level X before you hit the end boss or even get past this scene's Boss....

The ME and DA series, thanks to how they handle difficulty don't depend on grinding thus eliminating a LOT of the "optional" quests that other older games used to beef up their time.

There's also the fact that many gamers just don't have the time to complete a 50 hour game.

I mean, you can see this in Skyrim...you can actually complete the main game in under 8-10 hours if you ignored the optional quests...try doing the same in the Infinity Engine game and you'll get destroyed by the final boss.

[Bleachrude]

crimzontearz wrote...


yep....when I asked as a matter of curiosity about ethics I was told it was none of my business......verbatim

they likely did

Except we have PROOF writing and concept are two different things. Again, I hate harping on this but Return to Ostagar is content that Bioware wanted to do (and even started recording dialogue for it) but the actual complete act was never completed until AFTER the game was released.

And one can't argue that DA:O didnt have a long enough development time.

[chemiclord]

David7204 wrote...

Players whine when developers release DLC to fix problems with the game, and they whine when developers don't release DLC to fix problems with the game.

If you want to release a DLC to fix gameplay issues or correct bugs?  That's one thing.

But I'm talking about a story that intentionally leaves out what would normally be a vital piece to the story behind a DLC wall.  "Broken Steel" for example, added a small piece that completely changed the tone of the ending... and charged players $10 to see it (granted there was other content there as well).

I fear we are going to see more of this procedure very soon.

[Obadiah]

Interesting article. Also, nice Normany pic. Gonna grab that.


Anyone know where the "big" one is?

Modifié par Obadiah, 24 avril 2013 - 02:21 .

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...
DLC that "fixes" or "changes" that core experience makes me VERY wary however.  Leviathan toes that line (or crosses it depending on your level of cynicism) and the Extended Cut takes a flying leap over it (fortunately it was free).

Stuff like "Broken Steel" makes me realize, however, that my worry has already been realized, and we're going to start to see more of this phenomenon... that game companies realize they can indeed get away with selling an incomplete experience, and charge the customer more money later to "fix" it.

I don't see how this is a rational deliberate strategy. Even if a higher percentage of players than typically buy  DLC  will buy the "fix" DLC, presumably the lower quality of the main game shrinks the player base. Do you actually come out ahead?

And worse, wouldn't it encourage players to wait for the games to go off full price?

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 avril 2013 - 03:14 .

[chemiclord]

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't see how this is a rational deliberate strategy. Even if a higher percentage of players than typically buy  DLC  will buy the "fix" DLC, presumably the lower quality of the main game shrinks the player base. Do you actually come out ahead?

And worse, wouldn't it encourage players to wait for the games to go off full price?

Well... who would have thought Day 1 DLC was a smart idea?  Intentionally gate off initial content unless people pay more?  That sort of tactic smells of bait and switch in many ways... yet... here we are, with damn near every company doing it now to some degree.

Besides... look at the gaming industry right now.  It's not exactly filled with the smartest of humanity making the smartest decisions.

[AlanC9]

I guess it's conceivable. Ask me again when someone actually tries it, as opposed to just screwing up and fixing stuff retroactively.

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...

These don't strike me as being worth the screen time. Why would anyone care how legal procedures work? And "trying to stop killer robots from destroying the galaxy" is an all-purpose explanation.

Not you maybe, but a videogame series that presents interative storytelling as one of it's core features, taking responsiblity for made choices in that very same narrative is an excellent way to fill screen time, it's strengthens the narrative.

Modifié par Fixers0, 24 avril 2013 - 05:29 .

[AlanC9]

I don't think it would have strengthened ME3's narrative, because that narrative isn't about Shepard needing to justify his previous choices to anybody. Once the Reapers arrive, the trial becomes moot. Nobody's going to care about what happened to Aratoht except for Balak (or whoever replaces him if he's dead). Or care about anything else Shepard's done with the possible exception of handing the Cerberus Base over to TIM, and even that would be hard to make a case over since at the time of the trial Cerberus isn't revealed as a Reaper 5th column operation.

I think it would have flopped dramatically, and I think that's why Bio killed it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 avril 2013 - 06:34 .

[Obadiah]

chemiclord wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't see how this is a rational deliberate strategy. Even if a higher percentage of players than typically buy  DLC  will buy the "fix" DLC, presumably the lower quality of the main game shrinks the player base. Do you actually come out ahead?

And worse, wouldn't it encourage players to wait for the games to go off full price?

Well... who would have thought Day 1 DLC was a smart idea?  Intentionally gate off initial content unless people pay more?  That sort of tactic smells of bait and switch in many ways... yet... here we are, with damn near every company doing it now to some degree.

Besides... look at the gaming industry right now.  It's not exactly filled with the smartest of humanity making the smartest decisions.

I played ME3 a few times without the From Ashes DLC before eventually buying it, and it felt perfectly complete to me. I like Javik, but he doesn't really seem that core to the story. Neither do any of the other DLCs (except maybe the EC) to be honest.

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...
I don't think it would have strengthened ME3's narrative, because that narrative isn't about Shepard needing to justify his previous choices to anybody. Once the Reapers arrive, the trial becomes moot. Nobody's going to care about what happened to Aratoht except for Balak (or whoever replaces him if he's dead). Or care about anything else Shepard's done with the possible exception of handing the Cerberus Base over to TIM, and even that would be hard to make a case over since at the time of the trial Cerberus isn't revealed as a Reaper 5th column operation.

You're Wrong, the trial is exactcly about Shepard having the justify for previous choices, why was he/she locked up in the first place then? saying that it doesn't matter because of the Reaper's arriving is an arugment after the fact and as such isn't appliable here. after going an entire game of the rails by working freelance for a terrorist organisation taking responsabilty and is exactly what the narrative needs.

And not only does a trial support the narrative but it also helps the support the role-playing experiance through empowering the player by giving them the option to explain previous decisions within the context of then new game.

AlanC9 wrote...
I think it would have flopped dramatically, and I think that's why Bio killed it.

Not without the understanding that this all purely conjecture.

[David7204]

It would have clashed with the tone.

[Fixers0]

David7204 wrote...

It would have clashed with the tone.

Potentially, but not always. Shepard being asked for tactical advice, having no idea what's going while appearantly living in the idead that's the defence commitee is actually going to inform him is beyond stupid.

[SpamBot2000]

"Post launch support is something that we’ve taken very seriously at BioWare."

Yeah.... notice how "support" now always translates as "selling content for moar $$$$", never as "fixing reported bugs" or something along those lines?

[crimzontearz]

Bleachrude wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...


yep....when I asked as a matter of curiosity about ethics I was told it was none of my business......verbatim

they likely did

Except we have PROOF writing and concept are two different things. Again, I hate harping on this but Return to Ostagar is content that Bioware wanted to do (and even started recording dialogue for it) but the actual complete act was never completed until AFTER the game was released.

And one can't argue that DA:O didnt have a long enough development time.

and I did not ask about return to ostagar

[Bleachrude]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

"Post launch support is something that we’ve taken very seriously at BioWare."

Yeah.... notice how "support" now always translates as "selling content for moar $$$$", never as "fixing reported bugs" or something along those lines?

According to Tim Schafer of Double Fine, the first patch is free and every subsequent patch costs $40K. There were 5 patches for ME for both PS3 and X360 to my understanding.

Ergo, they spent a minimum of $320k on post launch support....

[SpamBot2000]

Bleachrude wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

"Post launch support is something that we’ve taken very seriously at BioWare."

Yeah.... notice how "support" now always translates as "selling content for moar $$$$", never as "fixing reported bugs" or something along those lines?

According to Tim Schafer of Double Fine, the first patch is free and every subsequent patch costs $40K. There were 5 patches for ME for both PS3 and X360 to my understanding.

Ergo, they spent a minimum of $320k on post launch support....

That's the X-Box Live price tag, are you just assuming a similar one for PSN? I've never seen anyone mention an actual price for that. There might well be one, but it could be anything.

So that's $160k confirmed. The launch sales figures for Mass Effect 3 were over $200 million. That's well below 0.1%.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 24 avril 2013 - 11:18 .

[Bleachrude]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

"Post launch support is something that we’ve taken very seriously at BioWare."

Yeah.... notice how "support" now always translates as "selling content for moar $$$$", never as "fixing reported bugs" or something along those lines?

According to Tim Schafer of Double Fine, the first patch is free and every subsequent patch costs $40K. There were 5 patches for ME for both PS3 and X360 to my understanding.

Ergo, they spent a minimum of $320k on post launch support....

That's the X-Box Live price tag, are you just assuming a similar one for PSN? I've never seen anyone mention an actual price for that. There might well be one, but it could be anything.

So that's $160k confirmed. The launch sales figures for Mass Effect 3 were over $200 million. That's well below 0.1%.

Safe assumption is that PSN has a similar price tag....

As for the sales figure, we have no idea just how much of that was actual profit and how much had to cover costs..so you can't use THAT figure to get a percentage of how "expensive" patching is.

[FlamingBoy]

Interesting, however it comes in the form expected of mr. gamble and bioware in general.
Painful, never ending, PR speak.