98 réponses à ce sujet

[Magic Zarim]

MOTpoetryION wrote...

sloth of doom are you stalking me or something ?

You seem to be in every post i make , and usually one of the first ones to post also . And its always a smart ass comment that comes out of your mouth as well . And as usually your adding stupid comments that i never say or ASSUME things. FYI when you assume , you just make an
(ASS) out of (U) and (ME) , but mostly just you . IM JUST ASKING A QUESTION .YOU REALLY NEED A LIFE THATS JUST IMO : ) Either that or track down the person that kicked your puppy when you were little. Sorry about that but the Sloth of Doom made me say that

Ah well.. what can I say. Social.Bioware.Com to some is a cozy cave

[Skurrow]

Dragon Age: Origins is a massive game. Of course its a complete product!

I can understand why people might question the validity of DLC released at the launch of a game, but it has been well explained for this one.

In my opinion, some expectations of cheap DLC is a little high at the moment because many of us only have full games/expansions to compare it too (at least, this was the first time I purchased DLC for a game). As it becomes more commonplace, we will have more experience and greater understanding of what we can expect from it. It will then be easier to see that we are getting good value for money.

Modifié par Skurrow, 17 janvier 2010 - 10:43 .

[Peeker2009]

purplesunset wrote...

Peeker2009

I smiled knowingly as I read through your post. Your post reminds me of the kind of posts that I used to make (never again).

Unfortunately, baring yourself with a heartfelt post on an internet forum only warrants being completely ignored at best, or being ridiculed at worst.

Companies will only listen to the mp3 buyers because they are more plentiful and consequently talk louder with their money. Similarly, full blown expansions will slowly go the way of the LP. 

Thanks for neither ignoring nor ridiculing my post then :happy: It's okay though, I write songs and play them to other people, so I've had to develop a pretty thick skin over the years. I try to see forums as a good opportunity to practice rusty writing skills, and make a point of treating other contributors the way I would like to be treated myself. So far so good. Besides, if all else fails,  never underestimate the value of anonimity as a last refuge 

[CptPatch]

Eurypterid wrote...
As for wanting things on a disc, I too prefer that, but it seems the industry is moving towards a digital distribution model and I wouldn't be surprised if in the not-too-distant future that's the only way many games will be available for purchase.

This, unfortunately, is VERY true, and very inevitable.  When producing a "traditional" boxed game, a substantial amount of prospective overhead is the profit margin "lost" to the distribution network.  Manufacturers generally are giving large distributors 40-60% discounts over the retail price.  (The distributors, in turn, generally are giving the retailers they distribute to @20-40% of that 40-60%.)  The manufacturer gives a large chunk of dollars/unit, but in return sells a HUGE number more units.  It's your basic volume discount marketing strategy.

In addition to the distribution discounts, there are significant overheads for packaging, box artwork, manuals and printing, disks and cases, etc.  When all is said and done, and after having added in the development costs, a manufacturer is lucky to take in 20-cents of every retail dollar.

Now, the development costs are "solid" overhead; there's no getting around that expense.  No investment, no game.  But ALL of that other stuff gets MASSIVELY reduced when distribution is via digital downloads.  Furthermore, if much of the savings is instead invested in Marketing, the increased demand gets drawn to the manufacturer's website instead of to the brick-and-board store downtown.  With all things considered, the manufacturer can easily afford to reduce the retail price by 10-20% below what the price is in the brick-and-board stores = even more demand direct to the manufacturer.

There are actually only two reasons why the market isn't already overwhelmingly geared to digital downloads:
A) To be totally viable, ALL gamers/consumers need to be connected to the Internet.  (Getting closer every year.)
Consumers need an Internet connection that can download at a "reasonable" speed.  When games amass several gigabytes of data, most connections would require several hours to download a single game.  (And hopefully there isn't a "hiccup" during that lllllooooonnnngggg download.)  Most gamers don't like to/can't tie up their computers for that long.  So what is needed is for broadband cable connections to become the norm instead of the exception.

HOWEVER, DLCs, being significantly smaller in data volume, are quite doable already, even at DSL and sometimes even dial-up speeds.  (Who even uses dial-up anymore?)

There is one last area of resistance to going digital, and it may very well be the biggest blockade:  MANY people simply prefer to a hard copy to have and to hold.  That includes a hard copy of the manual.  Don't get those with a digital download -- UNLESS the consumer goes to the bother of printing out a _very_ lengthy PDF file.  (Which has the overhead of printer paper, printer ink, and a LOT of time while it prints out.  All of which is perceived by the consumer as a surcharge.)

But you can already see the obvious (to me anyway) marketing ploy to ween consumers off of their need for a hard copy for their games: DLC.  How long will it take to go from a consumer buying the hardcopy, then follow that with 3, 4, 5, 6 or more DLCs, to the consumer concluding, "I may as well download the core game as well"?  _Especially_ when by doing so he can save $5-10 over the in-store price.

[Acid Wire]

I just want to post that I agree Dragon Age is a complete product without the DLC... although I may have sounded otherwise.

It's just the DLC system that bugs me, as I said in the other thread, I must have an "uncle scrooge" reflex... I'm reluctant to spending money on something that in my head I have already bought... I'm not sure if you guys see what I mean. I know it sounds stingy... but... oh yeah well, it does sound stingy. I just really prefer games the good old fashionned way where all the content is in the box when you buy it.

I wonder though... if DLC was free, could it drastically increase the popularity of Dragon Age and thus be more profitable to Bioware? I could see that happening: with word of mouth, people who have not bought Dragon Age could be seduced with the idea of buying a game with extra free content online. That could be the decisive argument for people to choose Dragon Age over game X produced by software compagny Y. That's just my 2 cents worth...

Modifié par Acid Wire, 17 janvier 2010 - 06:49 .

[Bibdy]

Gauging by

A) How much content comes with the game and

 How long its taken me just to make 2 empty levels with lighting and ambient sound effect

I'd say everything BW are doing in their offices is totally, 100% legit.

[Girchou]

Peeker2009 wrote...

I didnt recieve the stone prisoner, just the 5 items on the back of that card, and I had to get technical support to fix those as well. Not complaing, they were really nice about it. Thanks for the reply.

its on the back of the blood dragon armor thingy

[MOTpoetryION]

thank you peeker2009 for actually understanding what i mean . And nowhere in my post is the name BIOWARE. or any mention of shale or wardens peak . i am fully aware of the reasons behind why they were available same day

Also never accused anyone of doing this. Its is just a few questions or thoughts i wanted others opinion on. And IMO i think they should of held onto shale and wardens peak and maybe put them into a nice expansion pack or DA 2 .

And sold it on a disk . And yes i did mention EA and unfortunately you are part of them BIOWARE But they have made some bad choices in the past , like acually adding spyware in the game code , in regards to the in game advertisement idea they Had in the battlefield series.

But i was just asking opinions of others about the possibility of these things happening in the future . i never said it was already happening. and last where would i actually go to research these things that have no precedence YET I just think for myself (and yes out of the box) and don't just think everything is going to be perfect forever . And i was always under the impression that gamers were the smartest consumer group there is out of them all . But I'm starting to change that view of late . I give up with forums all together what good are they if when a different kind of thinker asks a question . he mostly just gets flamed . Just keep doing what your doing little sheep it may seem fun to you at the time

TO ALL asking questions is a good thing ,thats how you learn things but these days if someone asks a question he is laughed at ridiculed and called a noob , but its just a made up kiddie word but used with disdain. Allot of young people these days are just so vicious. And to think that some think in 2012 will come enlightenment for us all , ya sure like humankind as a whole are anywhere near deserving of that gift . Most still have a long way to go just to be desent at all good luck to the ones that do.

ALSO you never know who the person is on the other end of posts or what kind of condition emotionally they are in . Just imagine how many people may have ended their lives because of a mean or hateful response from someone in a forum. To the ones that do flame , don't be surprised when your standing in front of the maker. To find out that you were the reason someone took their own life just from the way you spoke to them . I would bet money on it that it has happened .

But then at that time ,it will be to late to change . And no I'm not one that would do such a thing , but just keep in mind . For every action there is and an equal and opposite reaction. it does not relate to gravity/motion alone. So i guess just keep thinking inside that box people im sure everything will be fine . signed by someone that hates to admit that allot of you are even related to me at all . Maker bless you all

Modifié par MOTpoetryION, 17 janvier 2010 - 08:39 .

[MOTpoetryION]

And i loved the game there were great concepts about it .i actually felt close to some of the characters And hoped none died in final battle . So keep it up bioware really nice job and thanks for the game

[Peeker2009]

No worries MOTpoetryION. I hope you weren't too singed by some of the less generous responses and keep writing from the heart. I know it's not easy, and despite what I said before, I still get that slightly uneasy feeling when I click the submit button. I get a similar feeling (though more intense obviously) before playing a gig, but as many have said before, if you don't get that feeling then it's probably not going to be a great performance.



Just a question: For those that really like the whole DLC thing, and for those who don't too tho I can guess those responses, how do you feel about being reminded in the middle of the game, via NPCs in camp and at that pass (can't recall lthe name), that you are actually a consumer in this world, and not really a Dwarven Noble in Fereldon? Does it weaken the feeling of "immersion" for you? If not, then how far would be too far when it comes to in-game spruiking?



Obviously I don't like it much myself; but would like to hear how others feel.

[MR-9]

DLC is the supermarket candy shoved in your face while you're on the way to check out with what you came for. Game developers will soon discover that they will never be able to fairly price DLC because of huge amount of work that goes into what will only be an hour of gameplay for the end user. You'll find yourself losing money when you develop animation and graphical libraries that cost you so much in labor and you use them for an hour long quest you can't price fairly because you're dealing with an unrealistic ratio of labor cost to end product length.

Some things should be bought only in bulk. Quests are one of these things.

Have fun pissing off your customers while you try to force the business model.

Modifié par MR-9, 17 janvier 2010 - 10:27 .

[Yrkoon]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...
Did David Gaider write the dead sea scrolls?

On a side note, he very well may have.

[Tae Jir]

Peeker2009 wrote...

No worries MOTpoetryION. I hope you weren't too singed by some of the less generous responses and keep writing from the heart. I know it's not easy, and despite what I said before, I still get that slightly uneasy feeling when I click the submit button.

When I follow threads that I have posted in, returning to them is always preceded by a sense of doom. though I gotta say, this community is way better than the political communities! You wanna see flame wars...talk politics. They make Gazkang seem like a CareBear!

I like your thread, MOTpoetryION. Good issue. I too prefer a hard copy. And I sure do remember the NWN1 add ons. Pukesville. Definitly had the flavour of originally rejected quests. But I think I'm getting used to doing without getting a hard copy with torrents and mp3s. Its like a game is the last hold out for me.

So far, I like the DA DLCs. Cheap and good fun.

What  I hope the game companies are heading for is something book authors already do. In planning  their stories, they break the greater story arc up into two or more (Robert Jordan anyone?) story arcs. So that the series can be read as one story, and each book is a satisfying  story in its own right.

I think DA might be the start of this. That the writers have a grand story in mind, and DA:O is the first part of it. So when we get part 2 or 3 or whatever, it will have a sense of continuity to it that will seem more satisfying than just another story told in a familiar world.

And I don't mind DLC that might fit in to this artistic/business plan. After all, I had great fun with this game and DLC and expansions and part 2 and so on just keeps me pleasured. I want that.

[The Archdemon]

MOTpoetryION wrote...

OK whats has been nagging at me is . Are they really selling us DLC .Or are  they like .,
selling us 1\\\\\\\\2 or 3\\\\\\\\4  of the game and then selling the rest as DLC. Just to milk more
money out of us.

I just don't trust EA and wouldn't put it past them to do it .

Followed on the next page by:

.Also never accused anyone of doing this.

Wow.  You should be a politician.

Modifié par The Archdemon, 17 janvier 2010 - 11:24 .

[purplesunset]

MOTpoetryION:

I am glad that you clarified your position regarding Dragon Age being a full game. We have to be fair to Bioware and acknowledge that they really did put a ton of work  and content into Dragon Age.  I also hope you realize that you have more allies in this thread than you think. As I said, before, I have started similar threads like this in the past where I lamented the direction that gaming was headed.

Peeker2009 wrote...

Just a question: For those that really like the whole DLC thing, and for those who don't too tho I can guess those responses, how do you feel about being reminded in the middle of the game, via NPCs in camp and at that pass (can't recall lthe name), that you are actually a consumer in this world, and not really a Dwarven Noble in Fereldon? Does it weaken the feeling of "immersion" for you? If not, then how far would be too far when it comes to in-game spruiking?

Obviously I don't like it much myself; but would like to hear how others feel.

There was a HUGE 80 page thread on the archived forums where many people talked about not being too happy with NPC's advertising DLC.

One common reason (which I agree with) was the immersion breaking nature of it.

However, the major reason I was against  NPC's  advertising DLC was something much more subtle. To me, including in-game advertising just highlighted how the way in which the gaming company's mindset has changed. We end users are viewed as consumers more than gamers.

Let me elaborate:

--------------------------------
I like to wax nostalgic about "back in the days," when companies were smaller and the game developers' focus was "hey, let's make this really cool, innovative game." Compared to now where companies are larger and the focus has to be "how can we maximize profit for this game?"

This happens because an entrepeneur of a small company must have a different mindset from a  CEO of a large company.

Suppose a group of people start a small gaming company in the early 90's. They are a bunch of geeks (and I use the term lovingly, for I am as geeky as it gets ) who get together to make something cool. They are very enthusiastic, they have vision,  they focus on innovation. "We're going to make an awesome game!"

However, if that company becomes successful and becomes much larger, they have to change their mindset.

The entrepenuer of the small company has to morph into a CEO of a big company. Big companies hate creativity because creativity equates to financial risk.  The focus becomes "what was most successful in the past?"  "What did our competitors do which was succesful?"  They don't like to shake things up because it's just too risky.

I believe this applies more than ever to Bioware. Bioware started out as small company, but now that they are bigger and more successful, they **HAVE** to change their mindset in order to keep from sinking.The competition is so keen. The costs are so very high.

This change in mindset is primarily why I am against this DLC thing and against in game adverstising. If more and more companies start going the route of releasing many  tiny DLC's, their mindset is going to change even more towards us being consumers rather than gamers.

It is a subtle distinction, but it makes a world of difference.   This change in mindset is what allowed the marketing department to come up with a "brilliant" idea
like in-game NPC 's advertising DLC.  The focus is not on how much that
would ruin the immersion because you are more of a consumer than a gamer.

Instead of "Gee, wouldn't this be a cool feature to add in for our fans to enjoy?" They will ask questions like, "Well, horse armor worked out well for our competitor Bethesda, what can we do to top that?" (of course, I'm deliberately being facetious here, but it's to illustrate how the mindset has to  change).

So to those of you who suspect that a company changed after they became successful. You're right. The entrepeneur of the small gaming company had to morph into the mindset of a CEO of a large company. 

This why you have to look to mod creators and to indie developers if you don't like where gaming is headed. The big companies MUST do what will net the most profits, or they risk going under.

If going digital and embracing the DLC business model proves to be the most succesful for them, then that is what they're going to do regardless of how much nostalgia a few people might have for the " good old days" of actually holding a disk in their hands.

Modifié par purplesunset, 17 janvier 2010 - 11:37 .

[CptPatch]

MOTpoetryION wrote...
But i was just asking opinions of others about the possibility of these things happening in the future .

Would it be too cheap of a response to say, "Depends on who is doing (producing) the DLCs"?

To figure out the "proper" way to do DLC, one needs to study the purpose of "the expansion pack".  It's NOT to expand the game content.  What it IS is a method of a company to make a profit.  And because it is a continuation of an existing system, the overhead costs percentage is substantially less for the base framework.  That is, the engine is already there, the foundation story (the fantasy world or whatever) has already been fleshed out, and many of the Who's Who has already been identified for the society at large.  All the expansion has to do is create a new plot line, define the current cast of characters, populate the world with new faces, places, and goodies and ouila! you've got an expansion.  And because it IS an expansion, the mass of original material is NOT perceived to being needed to be as much as the original game.

From the consumer side of this picture, all that is actually necessary is to "freshen up" a game that had been enjoyed, but now is "stale".  Preferably without squeezing too much juice out of the checking account, and without introducing a host of bugs and glitches that needed to be fixed.

Along the lines of "freshening up" the game, DA:O is an incredibly appropos venue for DLC.  The game was designed for a high replayability, encouraging players to run one Hero after another through the main story line.  If there is one serious major complaint about the game is that after only three or four playthroughs, the sequence of events in the main story line starts becoming "same old, same old".

Enter the trickled in DLC content.  For a considerably smaller price tag than a "normal" expansion, new, unfamiliar characters, place, and items can be put into the game for your _next_ playthrough.  The question then becomes, "Is that _enough_ to make the game feel 'fresh'?"

If there has been anything manufactures have learned about MMOs is that there is a BIG bundle of money to be made from micro-transactions.  There are a HUGE number of gamers that pointedly would _not_ spend $100 for a game.  (However, with already over a billion dollars in sales for Modern Warfare 2 -- a game that can be completed in less than 10 hours -- at $60 a pop, perhaps the $100 price tag for a game that guarantees 30+ hours of gameplay is probably not that far off.)  While they may not be willing to spend $100 up front (for now), it is quite possible that those same gamers would spend @$50 initially, and then spend _another_ $100 for additional game content over the course of the years.

Reputable game companies (generally those established and run by gamers) would most likely stuff as much as possible into the core game, and then put a "reasonable" amount of material in subsequent expansions/DLCs.  Other companies that are in the business to first a foremost to squeeze as much as possible from the consumers _will_ recognize that there is MORE money to be made from a product line by reducing the intial content and instead string out the excised material as DLCs.  And unfortunately, Modern Warfare 2 has pretty clearly demonstrated just how little needs to be put into the initial and still get away with charging Big Bucks.  ($60 is "Big Bucks" to me.)

Quite unfortunate for gamers everywhere, the vast majority of game consumers are purchasing their games with pointedly disposable income.  That is, they are NOT sacrificing a different purchase in order to buy that game.  Many are just allocating a portion of their allowance.  ("Money for nothing, and my [games] for free.")  If there's still enough money left over to catch a movie or hit the pizza parlor, whatever that price tag  may be, it's "affordable".  Sure, lower prices and/or more content would be nice, but just because that's not the way it is isn't anything to get all bent about.  If the game is something I enjoy, that's all that really matters.  ("Now, if after paying Big Bucks, it turns out that the game is a glitchy piece of c***, that's an entirely different matter.")

The ONLY thing that would deter a manufacturer from going the small content/Big Bucks up front, followed by a lllloooonnnggg DLC squeeze would be the clear possibility of a consumer boycott.  But when such a LARGE number of consumers take the attitude, "What's the problem?  If you don't like the price, don't buy the came," it pretty much guarantees that we will ALL be paying more for our games.  And most likely sooner, rather than later.

[MprezdNZ]

Acid Wire wrote...

I wonder though... if DLC was free, could it drastically increase the popularity of Dragon Age and thus be more profitable to Bioware? I could see that happening: with word of mouth, people who have not bought Dragon Age could be seduced with the idea of buying a game with extra free content online. That could be the decisive argument for people to choose Dragon Age over game X produced by software compagny Y. That's just my 2 cents worth...

Personally I don't think so. Bioware has/had a great reputation. So anyone having played their previous games like the BG series would be interested in this game However, there is a large community that wants to to have a multiplayer option in every single game they buy. Without it, they won't touch it. 

To me, this is a game you either want to play or not. The additional content doesn't make or break the decision whether or not you are paying for it. But this is coming from someone who has always loved Bioware. 

[TesseractSpace]

The Archdemon wrote...

MOTpoetryION wrote...

OK whats has been nagging at me is . Are they really selling us DLC .Or are  they like .,
selling us 1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\2 or 3\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\4  of the game and then selling the rest as DLC. Just to milk more
money out of us.

I just don't trust EA and wouldn't put it past them to do it .

Followed on the next page by:

.Also never accused anyone of doing this.

Wow.  You should be a politician.

Saying that you wouldn't put it past someone to do something and accusing them of actually doing it are two different things.

There are people who I feel have it in them to commit murder, but I wouldn't accuse them of having done so without proof that such has even occurred.

I agree that I wouldn't put it past EA to start releasing cheaply tossed together DLC to make a quick buck, but thus far they've managed to stay just on the other side of that line.  Probably because Bioware wouldn't stand for it.  If they release an 'item pack' dlc however, then I would take issue.  At least the DLC so far is added content 

I don't look at any of the DLC as being part of the game anymore because I can see where it just doesn't mesh seamlessly with the rest of it.  (Stone Prisoner has a 'here I am look at me' quest dumped into your journal.  Warden's Keep is clearly off in it's own little world where your actions in the rest of the world don't affect Warden's Keep, nor do your actions in Warden's Keep affect anything else.)

[purplesunset]

MprezdNZ wrote...
But this is coming from someone who has always loved Bioware. 

I think the majority of us in this thread (including myself) have always loved Bioware. Just because soemone expresses concern or criticism doesn't mean that they hate the thing. 

On the contrary, it  often shows that they care about it.

Case in point: I never went to any of the Spore forums to talk about how disappointed I was with EA for the lack of depth and the over strict DRM. That's because I have no interest in Spore.

I really wish more people would keep this in mind whenever they feel that Bioware needs to be defended from all criticism. The people who are criticising love Bioware just as much, if not more than you. Unless of course, it's a troll, but trolls are transparent.

[thegreateski]

It was BIOWARE! In the kitchen with a candle stick!



wait what game were we playing again?

[MOTpoetryION]

Thank you all that gave a constructive answer to the questions i presented . And even more thanks to the very kind private messages i received from some of you. But like i said i think differently then most and i like to bring different ideas or different angles to things to others. I feel how could that possibly be a bad thing.



We all have opinions on things but it doesn't mean mine is any better then yours or vise versa. I enjoy going into others posts ,and do so with a learning mindset. Because its like a peak into others minds or different ways of thinking about stuff.



And i do feel put off by allot of the comments the OP's receives for the reason that one less person might stop making future posts.. But you see once we got past the flamers it was, IMO a very good discussion . And i think spitze6860 hit on one of the big reasons why i made the post So thanks again everyone for you responses.