463 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

What this boils down to is a ridiculous and contradictory definition of 'necessary.' There are dozens, hundreds, thousands of theoretical ideas and features that COULD have been in Dragon Age or Mass Effect, that COULD have been extremely well-done and satisfying. And that's true of any work of fiction.

Are those ideas 'necessary'? Of course not. That's absurd. By that logic, every story in existence must be severely lacking because it didn't integrate every good idea in existence. By that definition, every story that exists and will ever exists is mind-blowingly incomplete.

But you can't agree with that and then claim an idea suddenly was necessary all along as soon as it's actually implemented into the game. And that's all this is. Players thinking content is completely unnecessary until it's actually intoduced to the game, then claiming it's completely necessary and the story could never have functioned without it.

Modifié par David7204, 09 mai 2013 - 02:32 .

[Ninja Stan]

Khayness wrote...

Then maybe you can answer this question to me:

Did the consumers thought limiting developed game content into different editions on release day was a legitimely good idea and wanted it, or the publishers tried new things to see how much can they get away with?

The degree which it had been done in previous BioWare games does not bother me, I survived not playing with the Facebook nonsense items in DA2, but it can be a subject of change. Ubisoft does it shamelessly.

If i understand your question correctly, companies will always try new ways of enticing customers to buy more. If it works well enough, the company will keep doing it. If it doesn't work, the company will try something different. But because companies are all about money, and without money they shut down, money becomes all important.

Customers very rarely get to determine how a game is sold to them, but enough people buy games a certain way, or don't buy games that feature a certain feature or system, that sends a strong message. 

[Rorschachinstein]

I always assumed that EA was very generous with time tables for DICE, Visceral and Bioware.

[Khayness]

Ninja Stan wrote...

If i understand your question correctly, companies will always try new ways of enticing customers to buy more. If it works well enough, the company will keep doing it. If it doesn't work, the company will try something different. But because companies are all about money, and without money they shut down, money becomes all important.

Customers very rarely get to determine how a game is sold to them, but enough people buy games a certain way, or don't buy games that feature a certain feature or system, that sends a strong message.

I doubt it costs that much to limit those few items to produce a loss if not bought enough. I can't imagine this is as a highly risky procedure from the publishers part.

So I don't think this whole vote with your wallet approach fits here.

Now I'm actually curious how many editions with a pretty sword in it needs to sell to be profitable.

Modifié par Khayness, 09 mai 2013 - 02:44 .

[Sejborg]

I added something to my last post about antichrist and Firefly. I can't copy paste since i am using my phone. I can't respond for a long while after this. It has been interesting to share viewpoints with you all. 'Later!

[Ninja Stan]

Khayness wrote...

I doubt it costs that much to limit those few items to produce a loss if not bought enough. I can't imagine this is as a highly risky procedure from the publishers part.

That's precisely the point! DLC is a low-cost way to try and drive up the sales of the base game, just like up-sizing your combo meal. Fries and soft drink syrup don't costs very much at all, so if the customer chooses not to up-size, the company hasn't lost very much. But if the customer does up-size, that adds to the bottom line. It's the same way with things like DLC.

The difference is that soft drink syrup and fries and be bought in bulk, thereby lowering the per-unit or per-serving cost. DLC, whils still being low-cost, is not zero-cost. It still costs money to develop and market, so if the DLC fails, not only is it not adding to the bottom line of the base game, it's also not making back the money used in its own development. It may not be high-risk, but it's certainly not zero-risk.

So I don't thing this whole vote with your wallet apprach fits here.

No, people not buying a specific DLC doesn't mean the DLC model is a failure. It just means that particular DLC was unattractive to buyers. But if enough people just stopped buying any DLC , then companies will have to figure out why and come up with an alternative.

Now I'm actually curious how many editions with a pretty sword in it needs to sell to be profitable.

You'd have to be pretty high up in any company to get that sort of information, and it has nothing to do with whether you choose to buy or not buy a product.

[Solmanian]

more likely delayed... I'd be surprised if it was released before 2014. Even though they they still insist DA:I will be a 2013 release, I think Xmas is the earliest we can hope for.

[Khayness]

Ninja Stan wrote...

You'd have to be pretty high up in any company to get that sort of information, and it has nothing to do with whether you choose to buy or not buy a product.

But it's a safe guess that manufacturing all those different boxes makes up the majority of the costs.

Modifié par Khayness, 09 mai 2013 - 02:56 .

[Ninja Stan]

Sejborg wrote...

The importance of the character is not the breaking point for me. The point is, I want to expereince the product the artist have intended.

Javik was sold as DLC, a non-essential (but greatly desired) addition to the base game.

Not something that is missing characters.

Mass Effect 3 is a complete game which can be played from beginning to end.

But Bioware is selling out on their artistic integrity even before the game is released. "My vision is this, but let's charge extra for some of it."

This statement does not make any sense. In addition to being creators and developers, BioWare is also a business. Their "artistic integrity" allows them to create and sell their product the way they want to. You, as a consumer, have the right, and arguably the responsibility, to purchase or not purchase the product they offer. But as you are not the creator or developer, you do not get to dictate what their vision is or how their product is sold.

You can have opinions about their vision or how their product is sold, but you don't get to unilaterally decide what that vision is.

No wonder you see comparisons with different sizes of burger meals and what not.

It is a convenient analogy that most everyone would likely have experience with, regardless of age, background or country of origin. While I am comparing the two, I am not equating the two. Not only that, but the analogy seems apt. You also don't get to determine what comes in your combo meal unless the restaurant allows you to. You don't get to tell the reataurant how much you will pay or for how much food. The price and portions are determined by the restaurant (actually, their head office or development division).

You are not "missing out" on fries and beverage because you did not up-size your combo. You are not "missing out" on food because you chose not to order a combo, even though the option is there. A restaurant is not "selling out" for offering an up-size or combo option, or for offering toys to entice parents to buy kids' meals.

McDonald's Restaurants is under no obligation to keep using the McDonaldland characters if they don't want to, even if I like them and want them back. They are also not obligated to offer the McRib in my area, even if it's my favourite McDonald's sandwich. They are not "selling out" by offering the McRib or by not offering the McRib. The decision to offer the McRib is entirely theirs and is likely based on data that I don't have access to. I can complain, write letters, suggest they have a McRib promotion, even ask them to send me a McRib. But what I can't do is dictate their corporate vision or what toppings that McRib will have on it.

And I have enjoyed this discussion and sharing of ideas too, Sejborg. Thank you.

[Ninja Stan]

Khayness wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

You'd have to be pretty high up in any company to get that sort of information, and it has nothing to do with whether you choose to buy or not buy a product.

But it's a safe guess that manufacturing all those different boxes makes up the majority of the costs.

Honestly, you can guess whatever you like. You don't have access to that information, nor can I prove you wrong. One would think, however, that that sort of thing is budgeted for, just like everything else associated with the game's production.

[LPPrince]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Javik was sold as DLC, a non-essential (but greatly desired) addition to the base game.

I've been staying out of this discussion since its not so much about whether or not the game will be rushed, but just wanted to say-

I think that was exactly the problem people had with Javik not being base-game material. Cause everyone wanted him and he was being developed/talked about way ahead of release but ended up as Day Uno DLC. Kinda like how everyone wants Skittles to take out those goddamned green apple monstrosities from the Original bag and put back Lime Green.

People damn sure want their Lime Green Skittles.

[hexaligned]

Khayness wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

If i understand your question correctly, companies will always try new ways of enticing customers to buy more. If it works well enough, the company will keep doing it. If it doesn't work, the company will try something different. But because companies are all about money, and without money they shut down, money becomes all important.

Customers very rarely get to determine how a game is sold to them, but enough people buy games a certain way, or don't buy games that feature a certain feature or system, that sends a strong message.

I doubt it costs that much to limit those few items to produce a loss if not bought enough. I can't imagine this is as a highly risky procedure from the publishers part.

So I don't think this whole vote with your wallet approach fits here.

Now I'm actually curious how many editions with a pretty sword in it needs to sell to be profitable.

I'm not sure it works with the (AAA) gaming industry either, it usually results in studios just getting shut down as far as I can tell.  A publisher like EA typically just buys up already established studios, milks them (by any and all means) for as long as they remain profitable, and shuts them down when they stop being so.  Rinse and repeat.  I'm not convinced they actually learn anything by doing that, or that they really much understand or care what gamers want.  I haven't seen any evidence of it anyways.

That being said Kickstarter has started taking off in a big way, and the Indy dev scene is the strongest it's been... maybe ever, so maybe they will start having to take notice.  Which is good (for all gamers), as those are business models that actually do empower the consumer.

[Homebound]

Chris Priestly wrote...

No. DA3 will not be rushed.

I'll hold you to that Chris.

[LPPrince]

Homebound wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

No. DA3 will not be rushed.

I'll hold you to that Chris.

Believe me. A LOT OF US ARE.

Also, excellent use of bringing this back to the original topic at hand.

*brohoof for good sportsmanship*

[Fast Jimmy]

So I don't thing this whole vote with your wallet apprach fits here.

No, people not buying a specific DLC doesn't mean the DLC model is a failure. It just means that particular DLC was unattractive to buyers. But if enough people just stopped buying any DLC , then companies will have to figure out why and come up with an alternative.

This is fine if this is your opinion, but it is a terrible business model. 

Saying "well, the company is making money doing X, so if you don't like it, don't pay money to fhem and then maybe they'll listen" is a recipe for failure, for both the consumer as well as the company. It is entirely reactive rather than pro-active, it wastes a valuable resource - consumer confidence - in lieu for the short term cash in and, all in all, is rather dismissive of the consumer and gives the appearance of the company rather smugly saying "deal with it."

Invariably when companies do this, competition comes in. Someone finds a way to offer an equivalent (or even better) version of the product for less expense and the market share slips out of the fingers of the company who thought they could rest on their laurels, saying their product and model was so superior, that they could ignore consumer demands as long as they were still making money.

Entrepreneurial history is littered with examples where this has happened... but this isn't a theoretical any longer for Bioware. A company like CD Projekt is offering a story-driven fantasy RPG with (arguably) better choice and consequence mechanisms, engaging lore and, impossible as some would make it out to seem, free DLC. The first game garnered critical and fan acclaim. The second game only worked to improve nearly every complaint given about the first game, neither providing the "same old thing" nor changing the formula so much to irritate the fan base. Given the ramp up of their studios, these games are making them lots of money (despite selling less copies than DA2 until the TW2 port to the 360)... all with a free DLC model. 

When TW3 comes out head-to-head (relatively) against DA3, it is entirely possible that many fans could not be impressed with what Bioware is offering, including their DLC model, and instead migrate their buying preferences elsewhere. If such a "voting of the wallet" was extreme enough, this won't be a "lesson learned" but a coffin nailed. In retrospect, people will say Bioware's commitment to unpopular pricing models killed their IPs.

Regardless, smart companies do not want consumers to vote with their wallets. Not when their consumers are wanting to vote them out of office, so to speak.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 mai 2013 - 03:33 .

[Homebound]

LPPrince wrote...

Homebound wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

No. DA3 will not be rushed.

I'll hold you to that Chris.

Believe me. A LOT OF US ARE.

Also, excellent use of bringing this back to the original topic at hand.

*brohoof for good sportsmanship*

Ya. I hate seeing good game developers fail.

[LPPrince]

I'd hate to see Bioware fail too. Hopefully DA3's the return to form we're all waiting for.

Patience. They need it, we need it, the game needs it.

[spirosz]

LPPrince wrote...

I'd hate to see Bioware fail too. Hopefully DA3's the return to form we're all waiting for.

Patience. They need it, we need it, the game needs it.

Less speculation as well. 

[LPPrince]

I don't think anything's going to stop the rampant speculating.

[Steppenwolf]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

One man's reward can always be interpreted as another man's punishment.  If you feel you're punished because we incentivize a preorder, what guarantee do I have that you won't still feel punished regardless of the preorder incentive?  How can I trust that we can make a decision that significantly affects how much exposure retailers are willing to give a game, which is fueled in large part by preorders, and you won't still take it the wrong way?  Is there anything that can be done to incentivize a preorder?  Or must a preordered copy award the exact same thing as someone that just decides to buy it the day it is released?

Are video games not allowed to incentivize purchases with bonus features the same way that virtually every other business in the world is able to do?  Buy a large soda?  Your price per mL goes down.  Buy a 64 pack of toilet paper, your price per roll goes down.  Early bird special for that house lottery.  And so on and so on.

It's up to you to decide "I think this treats me unfairly."  At the point, move on, or buy the game and the extra content at a price that you feel is fair.  For example, for all the people that feel they should get From Ashes for their $50 purchase: wait until ME3 + From Ashes costs $50.  You have now spent the amount of money you feel is fair for the content.

Not to pile on, but if you guys do end up having pre-order-only exclusives or day 1 DLC you'll be sending a message that you're not trying to win us back at all. Right or wrong those sorts of practices are viewed very negatively and have caused a lot of criticism of your games in the past. It's especially seen as a slight against gamers when like in the case of DA2 the game is rushed, buggy, basically incomplete and yet full DLC is released on day 1.
It will almost surely be disregarded, but I think you should avoid special pre-order editions and content, day 1 DLC and retailer-exclusive content entirely. Make selling the game about the quality of the game, not exploiting people's desire for completion and incentives.

[Homebound]

spirosz wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

I'd hate to see Bioware fail too. Hopefully DA3's the return to form we're all waiting for.

Patience. They need it, we need it, the game needs it.

Less speculation as well. 

Ya. I get this sense that the DA Universe has become very convoluded after the events of Hawke and company. It'd be very complex to pull all these elements together.

But for how EA will treat DA3 for its finances, Im guessing they'll DLC the crap out of it, as they do with all their other games. Im getting the impression this is how EA plans on breaking even. DLC DLC DLC. But I digress.

Im hoping the next EA CEO fixes this mess. Not just financially but maybe a rebranding of their product. Right now EA's seen by the general gaming public as a corporate moneymonger who spites its consumer base by pushing its soulless agenda of DLC and DRM. People generally go out of their way to erm...acquire their products with the least amount of gain for EA.

Again I digress.

If Chris is a sounding board to whats going on in Bioware we can at least assume they are aware of the issue of DA3 being rushed.
Depending on what EA does to turn itself around can greatly reinforce or completely obliterate product loyalty to the franchise.

[spirosz]

"We will not rush the game"

"Recycled maps again"

"Face plant"

Hopefully the composer doesn't feel "rushed" again, haha.

[LPPrince]

Well, besides not rushing the game, I'd love it if there were no preorder items, retailer-specific things, Day One yadda yadda yadda. Out of all those I'd be okay with a preorder item or two across the board for everyone who preorders no matter where or how they do it.

I like how Skyrim was released. No preorder incentive(barring CE's, and I got the standard anyway), no retailer-specific gimmick items.

It was just released. And woooooow did it feel good.

Also, it wasn't rushed. If DA3 can come even close to Skyrim as far as how great the game is crafted, then I'm a happy Prince.

[LinksOcarina]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

One man's reward can always be interpreted as another man's punishment.  If you feel you're punished because we incentivize a preorder, what guarantee do I have that you won't still feel punished regardless of the preorder incentive?  How can I trust that we can make a decision that significantly affects how much exposure retailers are willing to give a game, which is fueled in large part by preorders, and you won't still take it the wrong way?  Is there anything that can be done to incentivize a preorder?  Or must a preordered copy award the exact same thing as someone that just decides to buy it the day it is released?

Are video games not allowed to incentivize purchases with bonus features the same way that virtually every other business in the world is able to do?  Buy a large soda?  Your price per mL goes down.  Buy a 64 pack of toilet paper, your price per roll goes down.  Early bird special for that house lottery.  And so on and so on.

It's up to you to decide "I think this treats me unfairly."  At the point, move on, or buy the game and the extra content at a price that you feel is fair.  For example, for all the people that feel they should get From Ashes for their $50 purchase: wait until ME3 + From Ashes costs $50.  You have now spent the amount of money you feel is fair for the content.

Not to pile on, but if you guys do end up having pre-order-only exclusives or day 1 DLC you'll be sending a message that you're not trying to win us back at all. Right or wrong those sorts of practices are viewed very negatively and have caused a lot of criticism of your games in the past. It's especially seen as a slight against gamers when like in the case of DA2 the game is rushed, buggy, basically incomplete and yet full DLC is released on day 1.
It will almost surely be disregarded, but I think you should avoid special pre-order editions and content, day 1 DLC and retailer-exclusive content entirely. Make selling the game about the quality of the game, not exploiting people's desire for completion and incentives.

The thing is you can't, or else the retailers won't carry it. At least, big box stores like Wal-Mart and Target won't.

It will have retailer-exclusive content, be it DLC or a pre-order edition. It is not even about exploitation, its about showing support to the distribution base outside of digital download sales. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 09 mai 2013 - 03:50 .

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

LPPrince wrote...
I like how Skyrim was released. No preorder incentive(barring CE's, and I got the standard anyway), no retailer-specific gimmick items.

It was just released. And woooooow did it feel good.

It was also released on a Friday.

Because seriously, damn you Tuesday.

/notentirelyrelated