98 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

DOA is a meal, it is a complete and full meal. DLC is like adding desert, appetizers and a drink. The meal standa lone and will fill you up and provide all the nutrition you need. Everything else is a extra. DOa is clearly a full and saisifying meal as it stands.

Put another way, if no DLC was ever released would anyone sit around and think, "Wow, man, there's something missing from this game like, I don't know maybe a fortified structure where the Warden's rebelled vs the king or I don't know a sasy golem?" No, it feels like a full game.

[WarlordThor]

CptPatch wrote...

WarlordThor wrote...
Thus logically, if dlc is planned at all, or even given, the initial game is NOT the full game. Again, this does not meat BW is cheating anyone. They are still giving a ton of content in the initial release. But it is not the FULL game when dlc is planned and distributed.

I'm not comfortable with your analogy either.  Try this one:

You have a tree.  It is, at this moment, a complete tree.  It has branches and roots and leaves and whatever else is necessary to make it a tree.  BUT....

....The tree can grow, adding more branches, more leaves, more roots.  Does that fact that it _can_ grow make the younger version of itself less of a tree?

We buy a game.  It has a beginning (roots), a middle (branches) and an end (leaves).  IF WE CHOOSE TO NOT FEED THE TREE (no watering or fertilizer) the tree will NOT become that larger future version.  Does that diminish what we have already?  As long as you have that beginning, middle, and end, it is as complete as it needs to be.  The only real argument, in my opinion, is whether or not we have been overcharged for what we got.  

If we are just going to keep going with analogies, I think you need to rework yours. DLC is more like a growing branch. It is a planned part of the design meant to fulfill the overall story (or function in the case of a tree). The complete tree would include these branches. To cut them off before they have a chance to grow does make the tree less of its original self. We do know that the dlc was always planned from the start to complete the story. Even the expansion continues the story. I can see however that everyone is too entrenched in the desire to argue to admit they understand the definition of FULL and logic. Again, annd its sad i have to keep stating this, it does not diminish the value or content of the original game. BUT it is not the FULL game. It is not the FULL story and there are additional pieces that were always meant to add to the game from the very beginning design.

[Peeker2009]

Cptpatch wrote:

We buy a game.  It has a beginning (roots), a middle (branches) and an end (leaves).  IF WE CHOOSE TO NOT FEED THE TREE (no watering or fertilizer) the tree will NOT become that larger future version.  Does that diminish what we have already?  As long as you have that beginning, middle, and end, it is as complete as it needs to be.  The only real argument, in my opinion, is whether or not we have been overcharged for what we got. 

I love metaphysical arguments :happy:

I would agree that, according to a strict dictionary definition, it is no less a tree, but that on a philosphical level it is less of a tree, because, due to neglect or unsuitable conditions, it isn't allowed to reach it's full potential as a tree (as contained in the seeds original programming). For the same reason, a bonsai Californian Redwood contains less "treeness" (apologies to Gerald Manley Hopkins) than an ancient cousin standing tall on a mountain, with it's canopy in the clouds. This doesn't mean I would have no "love" for the stunted tree (in fact I always go for the undertree) but if I really want to appreciate a tree in all its glorious "treeness" I will go to the forest.

I can see that this argument might lead some to compare babies and adults. Is a baby any less a person than an adult? This is a more sensitive comparison, but I would say that babies are considered equally human (now more than in the past perhaps) mostly because of their potential to become adults. If babies never grew up, there status as human beings would surely diminish. How many would be saying how much they adored children if they never got out of nappies? We can adore their "babiness" because we implicitly understand their potential to change and grow.

Of course, this then brings up a more controversial subject. That is, how do we evaluate a person who, through a genetic defect/mutation, cannot reach full potential. In the past, such unfortunates were barely considered human, but attitudes have thankfully changed. Why?  Greater empathy  - there but for the grace of god (read chance) go I; less superstition - Excorcist is a disappearing profession; More resources - in the past if you couldn't contribute to the tribe you were left behind; and a realisation that if we take Darwin's principles as a basis for society we end up with variations of Adolf Hitler.

"complete as it needs to be" is therefore a very tricky idea to unravel

Anyway, I'm not implying that your argument is necessarily weaker due to the tree analogy. Nor that there aren't valid counter-arguments to my own (as there surely are). There is no conclusiveness in metaphysical arguments, they are just useful sometimes, and good fun most times.

How this applies to the question of DLC value, I honestly have no idea . Back to the topic....

Modifié par Peeker2009, 23 janvier 2010 - 07:32 .

[CptPatch]

WarlordThor wrote...
DLC is more like a growing branch. It is a planned part of the design meant to fulfill the overall story (or function in the case of a tree). The complete tree would include these branches. To cut them off before they have a chance to grow does make the tree less of its original self. We do know that the dlc was always planned from the start to complete the story. Even the expansion continues the story. I can see however that everyone is too entrenched in the desire to argue to admit they understand the definition of FULL and logic. Again, annd its sad i have to keep stating this, it does not diminish the value or content of the original game. BUT it is not the FULL game. It is not the FULL story and there are additional pieces that were always meant to add to the game from the very beginning design.

We are most likely going to have to agree to disagree.  In point of fact, I _strongly_ disagree with your interpretation.

Following how you are defining DLC/expansions, then it would be suggesting that because BioWare marketed Baldur's Gate, Tales From The Sword Coast, Baldur's Gate II, and Throne of Bhaal as separate products, one would have to conclude that THEY WERE DELIBERATELY RIPPING US OFF!  All those _do_ tie together.  You can start at one end and play through all of them with the same character, thus making it a continuous story.  Compiled together, they make for a VERY large "tree", but nonetheless a single "tree".  Though one could leave off any early portion (skip BG for instance), that would be like someone lopped off some branches, making the "tree" incomplete.

Switching over to literature, do you have a favorite fictional character that appears again and again in a series of novels?  Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt series, for instance, or Doyle's Sherlock Holmes.  If you read all the books, you can easily see the chronology in which the books occur.  Does the fact that ALL of the books are _not_ bundled into a single anthology make any of the individual novels less of a book?  If an author bound a few chapters together and sold them as a full-blown "book", I'd probably object that I was being ripped off.  But if the price is proportional to the weight of the volume -- costing significantly less than a normal-sized book -- I wouldn't particularly object.  That is, UNLESS that thin volume ended with a "To be concluded in the next installment".
Something like that would most likely annoy me quite a bit.

But as far as I can see, DA:O can quite easily stand by itself.  There's the beginning, the middle and THE END.  There is also a lot of "the path not chosen" material.  If you ONLY play Good characters, you will never see the non-Good stuff.  And that non-Good stuff is still content that you paid for.  Does that mean you were being ripped off, because you never get to see some of the game?  No, because it was there for you go see, but _you_ chose not to go there.

But what about expanding on the "path not chosen" material?  Does it matter whether the material added came after the game was released?  Should the game have been held back another six months so that material could be integrated into the core product?  If it is acceptable to create expansion material later, how does it matter if the expansion is available from Day One?  Given the cost of development for that additional material, would a manufacturer be allowed to legitimately charge a higher price for the game + expansion edition?  Such as, you can buy the core game for $50, and then buy the expansion for $10, OR you can buy the Special Edition which contains both for $60.  Do you object to a manufacturer charging a higher price for products that cost more to produce?

***********
I originally jumped into this discussion with the idea that we consumers were being ripped off to an extent.  But I find that my irritation is NOT so much about the methodology, but rather the reduced Bang For The Buck.  That is, for what is offers, the core of DA:O _is_ a bargain.  However, in comparison to DA:O, Warden's Keep is rather over-priced, and RtO is significantly over-priced.  At those prices, I can either let myself be "ripped off", or feel deprived of playing enjoyment by NOT paying those prices and going without.  Either way, I'm not happy with the situation.  But I do NOT feel that I can legitimately argue against the method in which the game content is being marketed.

[DoctorPringles]

.... Wow. This is getting ridiculous. The game was complete without Shale. I did not feel like I was playing an incomplete game without Shale. Everything went through exactly as it should have. The only things I missed are some dialogs and a very small quest. That's nothing to complain over. Games are always going to have content that has to be cut, but it's always the content that is least necessary to the plot. Shale had absolutely nothing to do with the plot of the story, she was merely a side quest. Hell, if you want to apply an analogy here's this one; you've got a wife. You've got a complete romance with everything you could need, but you want extra, so you buy a hooker. The hooker is not necessary to your romance, but is a thing on the side almost completely seperate. DA:O is the wife, Shale is the hooker. Good enough analogy for ya?

[WarlordThor]

CptPatch wrote...

WarlordThor wrote...
DLC is more like a growing branch. It is a planned part of the design meant to fulfill the overall story (or function in the case of a tree). The complete tree would include these branches. To cut them off before they have a chance to grow does make the tree less of its original self. We do know that the dlc was always planned from the start to complete the story. Even the expansion continues the story. I can see however that everyone is too entrenched in the desire to argue to admit they understand the definition of FULL and logic. Again, annd its sad i have to keep stating this, it does not diminish the value or content of the original game. BUT it is not the FULL game. It is not the FULL story and there are additional pieces that were always meant to add to the game from the very beginning design.

We are most likely going to have to agree to disagree.  In point of fact, I _strongly_ disagree with your interpretation.

Following how you are defining DLC/expansions, then it would be suggesting that because BioWare marketed Baldur's Gate, Tales From The Sword Coast, Baldur's Gate II, and Throne of Bhaal as separate products, one would have to conclude that THEY WERE DELIBERATELY RIPPING US OFF!  All those _do_ tie together.  You can start at one end and play through all of them with the same character, thus making it a continuous story.  Compiled together, they make for a VERY large "tree", but nonetheless a single "tree".  Though one could leave off any early portion (skip BG for instance), that would be like someone lopped off some branches, making the "tree" incomplete.

Switching over to literature, do you have a favorite fictional character that appears again and again in a series of novels?  Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt series, for instance, or Doyle's Sherlock Holmes.  If you read all the books, you can easily see the chronology in which the books occur.  Does the fact that ALL of the books are _not_ bundled into a single anthology make any of the individual novels less of a book?  If an author bound a few chapters together and sold them as a full-blown "book", I'd probably object that I was being ripped off.  But if the price is proportional to the weight of the volume -- costing significantly less than a normal-sized book -- I wouldn't particularly object.  That is, UNLESS that thin volume ended with a "To be concluded in the next installment".
Something like that would most likely annoy me quite a bit.

But as far as I can see, DA:O can quite easily stand by itself.  There's the beginning, the middle and THE END.  There is also a lot of "the path not chosen" material.  If you ONLY play Good characters, you will never see the non-Good stuff.  And that non-Good stuff is still content that you paid for.  Does that mean you were being ripped off, because you never get to see some of the game?  No, because it was there for you go see, but _you_ chose not to go there.

But what about expanding on the "path not chosen" material?  Does it matter whether the material added came after the game was released?  Should the game have been held back another six months so that material could be integrated into the core product?  If it is acceptable to create expansion material later, how does it matter if the expansion is available from Day One?  Given the cost of development for that additional material, would a manufacturer be allowed to legitimately charge a higher price for the game + expansion edition?  Such as, you can buy the core game for $50, and then buy the expansion for $10, OR you can buy the Special Edition which contains both for $60.  Do you object to a manufacturer charging a higher price for products that cost more to produce?

***********
I originally jumped into this discussion with the idea that we consumers were being ripped off to an extent.  But I find that my irritation is NOT so much about the methodology, but rather the reduced Bang For The Buck.  That is, for what is offers, the core of DA:O _is_ a bargain.  However, in comparison to DA:O, Warden's Keep is rather over-priced, and RtO is significantly over-priced.  At those prices, I can either let myself be "ripped off", or feel deprived of playing enjoyment by NOT paying those prices and going without.  Either way, I'm not happy with the situation.  But I do NOT feel that I can legitimately argue against the method in which the game content is being marketed.

Sorry I refuse to read the majority of this post whenn your argument is that DA:O can stand by itself. Which I have made clear several times I agree with. But it does not change the fact that it is not the FULL game. Apparently you have not taken the care to read my posts, or think about them, so I won't return the favor.

[DariusTrue]

If DLC is the way the industry is moving it's because people are willing to pay the money for it to be that way. I'm sure the ?CD? will miss you too.

[DoctorPringles]

There's not a game out that is 100% what the developers would like it to be. They always have content they want to add to make it richer, more fun, or more thought provoking. The problem is, that's impossible. There isn't enough money or time to add every possible feature to a game and be completely satisfied. Thus, we are given the most complete version that can be attained in the given amount of time and money the publisher allows.

[EscherEnigma]

My first playthrough lasted over sixty hours. So even if it was their plan to release only "1/2 or 3/4" of the game, and the rest through downloadable content, I can't begrudge them. I got my money's worth.

[CptPatch]

WarlordThor wrote...
Sorry I refuse to read the majority of this post whenn your argument is that DA:O can stand by itself. Which I have made clear several times I agree with. But it does not change the fact that it is not the FULL game. Apparently you have not taken the care to read my posts, or think about them, so I won't return the favor.

Are you assuming that because I disagree with your argument, I _must_ not have read your posts thoroughly and/or failed to properly contemplate what was said?  If so, you'd be quite in error.  I _have_ read your posts and I _have_ considered your argument.  And despite the lucid presentation, I find that I sincerely believe you are entirely off the mark.

This is NOT a case of one or more volumes of the Encyclopedia Brittanica going missing.  It's more a case that your collection of Nancy Drew mysteries is missing a few stories.  The fact that there are a few missing does not at all mean that THE STORY is incomplete.  Nor does it preclude the author's ability to go back to an early novel and "flesh it out" by adding a few chapters.

A game is complete if you can play it from beginning to end and there are no gaping holes in the story/gameplay.  How much of a value it is depends on how much you got versus how much you expected.  Modern Warfare 2 cost $60 and offers most players about 10 hours of gameplay, at which time you've pretty much exhausted all the game has to offer.  DA:O also cost $60 but on average, players are getting anywhere from 20 - 100+ hours to complete a game, but still have unique gameplay to go back and uncover.  Is MW2 a ripoff, or is DA:O an incredible bargain?  Or are they _both_ ripoffs?  If you feel that a playthrough of DA:O left you feeling shortchanged, please, in all sincerity, provide several examples of games that you felt were NOT ripoffs and explain why it is that they aren't a ripoff, but DA:O still leaves you feeling shortchanged.

The only really objectionable practice for a game manufacturer would be to charge an excessive amount for any component., be it core game or expansion/DLC.  And just because the seller offered a serious bargain for the core game does NOT mean that he _must_ charge a serious bargain price for what comes later.  (And with this in mind, I _still_ feel that Wardens' Keep and RtO are over-priced.)

[MOTpoetryION]

well you guys are forgetting again i never said the name Boiware. Or referenced any of their DLC by name. Its just this is the forum i chose to enlighten you guys of whats happening and the way things are going nothing more.The game was whole But if you don't want to believe it thats fine , don't . Believe me when i say though you WILL remember this post 5 years from now, i guarantee it. .

BIOWARE seems like a good Dev. They have had a good reputation And allot of fans . That is obvious , i Know Ive have received my share of flaming from allot of the fanboi 's . Because i speak my mind .But will they keep doing the same as they have Hopefully For all of our sake . BG has a huge following it seems, never played it myself I don't know what kind of game it is .

I left gaming for awhile, never cared much for turn-based play I have had and still do have every console there ever was except dream-cast. Ive played so many its scary ,lol . Spent thousands of $$$ . ,So I'm a good judge of games and I'm an impartial judge in regards to BIOWARE . I'm new to them, so to speak.

But BRACE your selfs EA is involved with them now . They are a corporation ALL corps are driven by money ,for money ,period . I'm asking this because you will find the reason out , lower down thread . Ask yourself Honestly And answer honestly . (1 )Bioware  Are they following the same game plan they always have ? ( 2 ) Has anything changed about them ? (3) Is customer care and patching of games like its always been ? You are aware there are more then just a few people that still cant even play the game more then 10-15 min without it crashing? ( 4) Have they always been kind of slow in responding to issues ? IMO, they have been slow even admitting that problems existed .

Its taken them two and a half months to make a thread about the longer loading screen issue. " And ask us not to call it a memory leak just call it a longer loading time issue? and say they are having a hard time getting the long loading times. I suggested in the future they should test on a few different makes and models of computers NOT only on a top of the line one Good advice huh"

BUT when i made a comment about it taking two and a half months to get around to the issue . I was instantly flamed by a couple said fanboi's and i responded to one of them with the end being A** (and in the) HOLE ," censored by me at the time of posting ", but now put this way to be safe. AND i received a TOS violation for it . SEEM a little harsh ??? And my post was deleted completely (5 ) Have they always been like that ?

I loved DOA for ALLOT of the things/concepts involved with it .The companions/ banter was awesome. I have only felt close to one other char in games , You would know him by the name of Link. And that took many years and games to form . But BIOWARE managed to do that and much more with just one game for me, with this game . And thats saying allot . The included old school puzzles tribute WAS / IS EPIC . I only wish there were more of them : ).

The romance thing well good try but the whole bra thing killed it instantly for me . I think it has to be THE # 1 game with the most Easter Eggs of all times .Thats coming from gamers for gamers and much more .


BRACE OK, there were quite a few issues with it upon release .Don't believe me look at the size of the tech threads , unusually large for such a new game the proof right there in the pudding . IMO The game just seemed rushed to me (6) Have their games always been so ? I don't know again only you can answer that for me ?

Some wont even admite to any problems/ issues. But thats blind faith and complacency both of which are not healthy for any consumer to fall into . From a new customer point of view I'm far from impressed .  I'm not getting any feeling of cudtomer care  its not very good PR
 
AGAIN is it EA ? You can be honest . The world wont end if they are less then great/favorable answers I just don't like the business model the industry is using and the way its headed in the least. And am presently in the process of a project to do something about it not just for me but for ALL of us .ill keep you informed
.
Dang-it i almost sidetracked my own thread there . But have hope, all is not lost YET . thats why i felt the need to tell you guys about where the industries is headed So we can be a part of that change., and not just victims of

They will probibly start doing this just look how they are advertising the DLC   If that s not caring about nothing but money  . with no regards for our gaming experience i don't know what is  where or when will we stand up for  ourselfs? im not about to let a corparation destroy gamming      IMO EA is the blight

Modifié par MOTpoetryION, 24 janvier 2010 - 12:51 .

[CptPatch]

MOTpoetryION wrote...
 IMO The game just seemed rushed to me (6) Have their games always been so ? I don't know again only you can answer that for me ?

Believe it or not, once upon a time, EA was a Good Thing for gaming in general.  A _lot_ of decent games that might have never seen the light of day because the developers ran out of funding did get finished because EA stepped into the picture.

But then something awful happened: EA became successful. 
It's now just about the largest source of funding for game developers.  And EA is practically worshipping its Return On Investment.  As being the Banker for a developer, they basically become at the mercy to EA's demands: "You _will_ not get carried away with jamming more content into a game than is absolutely necessary.  You _will_ release on the schedule that we set.  You _will_ NOT hold back a release just because 'It's not ready yet!'  You will reduce your staff if we tell you to."  Developers MUST follow EA's suggestions or risk NOT having their next project  -- or any other future project funded by EA (or any other potential investor if they follow EA's blackballing advice).  As a last resort, EA has been known to pull the funding of developers that fail to comply with EA's "advice".

I can look at the timing of DA:O' s release and see exactly why it's so buggy: EA didn't want to miss the Xmas sales.  So, "Ready or not, here we come!"

Looks like it wasn't entirely ready.  Oh, well.  That's why God made patches, right?

[MOTpoetryION]

But you all need to realize that the Dev's they buy are no longer the ones you love they are just acting like they are the same .And thats just a corporate tool used for only one thing to fool the consumer/fan-base into thinking thats nothing has changed so they will stay loyal paying customers. And yes sadly thats IS what patches are for THESE days .They used to be for fixing unique bugs not found by the QA dept by release .



But are now used to fix multiple bugs/problems after release that should of been fixed before release that any 8 year old could of found. Just seems like good QA Dept's are becoming extinct or more likely they are just no allowed to hold up a game anymore for that finale polish that used to be the standard. IMO its like we are paying them to be their QA dept The gamers do now come up with most of the fixes or workarounds for games and have for awhile now.



Just think of it in terms of EA are the dealers, we are the game addicts. All they have to do is supply enough games to keep us hooked/happy. And they now know the quality does not have to be really high because we are hooked. But thats mostly the our fault for excepting that mediocre quality. And seems like most will except anything and force themselves not to see the problems with the end product. And just say ya its great stuff man. Its true and you guys know your doing it ,



But Ive pretty much given up on you guys . And this i think will be my last thread like this . But I'm not just going to get in line behind you all and follow . I just will not try and enlighten you guys anymore . But i will still voice my opinion of a game because i don't care how much i love a Dev for past games, they always have to keep proving themselves. And i will always give my HONEST opinion of how they did.

[MOTpoetryION]

no thats not what i was saying .what i was saying ,that i wouldn't put it past some EA executive to come up with what i just explained and its probably only a matter of time for it to happen because EA can care less about the common gamer other then our money. the thread was based on because of how many games that are comming out that have DLC all ready to go on release day . so who is to say they wouldn't start doing this as a new policy. And if the people that now work for them dont do what they say or still wants to make quality And EA says no Out they go



They are in the business to make money. so now on top of the Price for the game their making maybe an extra 20 bucks more its allot easier to pull off then just trying to raise the game price by 20 bucks. because i bet 80 % payed about 75 $ for DAO "And the old model was working fine, they would come out with an expansion pack in month or so ,that had allot of nice content to it" . instead of a little piece here and there. And like i said its all just because of having DLC from day one.



And your analogy of working on a game for a 100 years , come on, You were doing good sell in the debate till you threw the 100 in there then it all went flat. But i said i was done with this. Flawed maybe but like EA isn't flawed to begin with They are a corporation they are not a developer. Profit is there only goal , not the love of games or us. The companies they buy were gamers/Dev's making games for gamers. Before EA bought them. EA will change them to just make games for profit the love for gamers will not be there anymore all we are now to EA is just a dollar sign nothing more.



ME2 is further proof of that. they sold the game and they diddnt care if the servers went down.IMO They just are like oh well we will fix it/game/server if something goes wrong or patch or QA the game after they sell it instead of thinking ahead and making sure it doesnt happen in the first place . like a fellow gamer would because they care .



Because by then they already had/have what they wanted the money . ME1 was huge how can anyone let the servers crash or not think of beefing them up before release. Its like they dont want to spend money unless they have to . they can care less if we **** about it because its just one person at a time But yes i see what you mean , but there is never only one veiw to an issue . You say mine is flawed i say yours is flawed : ) becuse i think it could happen you think it cant

but im dont the more i talk about it the bigger chance of one of them seeing this and then i might be the reason they try it ,or give them the idea

[CptPatch]

MOTpoetryION wrote...
no thats not what i was saying .what i was saying ,....

[Just a FYI: I think the previous post was actually aimed at WarlordThor.]

Mixed feelings about your overall comments.  Part of my reactions stem from the fact that I have in the past worked for a manufacturer, a distributor, and a retailer of games, as well as having been a hardcore gamer most of my life.  The part of me that has worked in the Biz recognizes an ironclad rule of biz:  The absolute primary goal of a business is to make money.  Any business that does not keep that goal firmly in mind _will_ most likely fail, sooner or later.  There have been quite a few game companies established by gamers, producing for gamers, and cranking out wonderful games (from a gamer's POV) -- until they went out of business.  And it wasn't because gamers weren't buying enough of their games.  It was because those companies inevitably kept too many titles in development for too long, cramming as much gaming goodness as possible into each and every game.  The Development phase of a game is a two-edged sword: It's where all the great ideas take shape, BUT it is also a pure and hellacious drain on a company's financial resources.

It is actually an economic Law of Nature that inevitably leads to the patch-it-after-release model that has become soooo commonplace today.  If the company didn't sell the bug-infested initial releases, the company would have NO cashflow to continue paying the cash drain of games in development.  Given a choice of NO GAMES AT ALL, versus buggy games that _do_ eventually get fixed, which would you prefer?

Another inevitable eventuality is that core games WILL become shorter.  DA:O and ME2 are actually major aberrations at this time, while CoD4:MW2 is actually closer to what we can expect in the foreseeable future.  Less content means a quicker release AND fewer bugs.  It also means that the company starts to get cash back on its investment that much quicker.  Money coming in means the company has the resources to add content to a game via expansions and DLCs.  An additional benefit is that there is a wealth of consumer feedback available to help shape that future content expansion, and to once again help reduce the number of bugs.

[A NOTE ON BUGS: I can't speak for consoles, but when it comes to PCs, there are literally thousands of configuration combinations of hardware, drivers, software, and operating systems software.  Not to mention the adware, spyware, malware, and viruses that compromise a PC's performance in a myriad of ways.  There is literally NO company in the world that can afford to QA _every_ combination.  That includes M$, EA, IBM, or any other large corporation that you can think of.  _Can_Not_Be_Done_.  So developers work on games with their state-of-the-art PCs (at least they were when the project started) and optimize for that configuration.  Then they start to QA and rectify for as many "common" configurations they can think of.  (Which inevitably overlooks _your_ setup. it seems.)  Thereafter, they have to wait for feedback for all of the other configurations that have glitches and then patch like crazy.  This more or less has to be written off as "Nature of The Beast".]

Now, from the gamer POV, I can readily recognize that whatever amount of material released in the core game, there will undoubtedly be even more "still on the drawing board".  It may even be packaged and available for sale on Day One of the core game.  And I being cheated because that additional material was NOT included in the core game, at no additional cost?  Well, it's actually like going to a restaurant where you pay extra for dessert, isn't it?  Not everybody requires a dessert; others believe that a meal just ain't a meal unless it comes with dessert.  Of those two groups, which is "correct"?

Whether or not there is additional material to follow a core game is actually irrelevant.  It may be the launch of a series -- in which case additional material will follow in the wake of the initial release for years to come.  Just like the "five-year mission of the starship Enterprise".  Or maybe it's just a mini-series.  Whichever is the case, what is important is that each installment can stand on its own.  Yet you can see the continuity that stated in the pilot episode and stretched all the way to the Grand Finale.

The REAL measure as to whether or not you are being cheated is the relationship between price charged versus value received.  That evaluation is unique to each and every consumer.  For the millions of MW2 consumers, how many think that $60 for 10 hours of gameplay was a worthy investment?  As opposed to an outrageous ripoff?  In contrast, for $60, DA:O can give every player at least 20 hours of gameplay.  (Personally, I'm well past the 100-hour mark.)  Comparing the two games, I'd have to conclude that DA:O is an incredible bargain while MW2 is an outrageous ripoff.  Yet, it seems that the vast, overwhelming majority of MW2 players feel that they received an adequate amount of value for their investment.  And there most definitely are a noticeable number of DA:O consumers insisting that they should have gotten considerably more content than they did.

Who is "right"?  And who is "wrong"?  The answer, it seems to me, lies within each of us.  AND we must recognize that each of us can only speak for ourselves.

As consumers, we've pretty much passed the Point of No Return quite awhile ago.  The ONLY thing that consumers can do in order to modify corporate behavior is to organize a VERY LARGE boycott.  Ain't Gonna Happen.  There are just far too many consumers that want what they want and don't care about what the price tag is.  This literally means that we can scream all we want about bugs and high prices and lack of content, but to the manufacturers, those complaints mean literally nothing at all.  Individual lost sales when a product sells millions of units have zero impact.  Because anyone that is out @$50-100 and unhappy will NOT invest even more money and the umpteen hundred hours necessary to form an effective boycott.

Got myself good and depressed now.  The more I contemplate this situation, the more I see the "Damned if we do; damned if we don't" of it all.

Sorry about going on for so long.  Attaboys are available for anyone that actually read the entire thing.

[ernst vidar]

help how do i enchant runes onto weapons i have loads of runes and weapons with slots on but can't find anyone to do it for me

[AlanC9]

CptPatch wrote...
There have been quite a few game companies established by gamers, producing for gamers, and cranking out wonderful games (from a gamer's POV) -- until they went out of business.

Suddenly I'm reminded of Gathering of Developers, though I don't think they're really the sort of thing you're thinking of.

Another inevitable eventuality is that core games WILL become shorter.  DA:O and ME2 are actually major aberrations at this time, while CoD4:MW2 is actually closer to what we can expect in the foreseeable future.  

Of course, the problem comes in when game prices stay the same but the game get smaller. Though this is somewhat overstated, I think. What did BG1 cost at release in 2010 dollars?

Now, from the gamer POV, I can readily recognize that whatever amount of material released in the core game, there will undoubtedly be even more "still on the drawing board".  It may even be packaged and available for sale on Day One of the core game.  And I being cheated because that additional material was NOT included in the core game, at no additional cost?  Well, it's actually like going to a restaurant where you pay extra for dessert, isn't it?  Not everybody requires a dessert; others believe that a meal just ain't a meal unless it comes with dessert.  Of those two groups, which is "correct"?

The only thing I'd add to this is that RPGs, in particular, always ship with some of the content cut. Sometimes just a trace, sometimes enough so fans can reconstruct the content to some extent.

 In contrast, for $60, DA:O can give every player at least 20 hours of gameplay.  (Personally, I'm well past the 100-hour mark.)  

Can a new player actually finish the game that fast? 

As for the general point, what worries me is that someone will get the idea that since people will pay $3/hour for DLC, they'll be OK paying that for full games. Or rather, I'm worried that enough players would buy games at this price that the strategy works. Though we may be past this point already in shooters, Half-Life series excepted.

[AlanC9]

MOTpoetryION wrote...

They are in the business to make money. so now on top of the Price for the game their making maybe an extra 20 bucks more its allot easier to pull off then just trying to raise the game price by 20 bucks. because i bet 80 % payed about 75 $ for DAO "And the old model was working fine, they would come out with an expansion pack in month or so ,that had allot of nice content to it" . instead of a little piece here and there. And like i said its all just because of having DLC from day one.

An expansion pack in a month or so? Your English is tangled enough here that I'm not sure if you're trying to be serious or you're making fun of someone else.

[grieferbastard]

MOTpoetryION wrote...

But you all need to realize that the Dev's they buy are no longer the ones you love they are just acting like they are the same .And thats just a corporate tool used for only one thing to fool the consumer/fan-base into thinking thats nothing has changed so they will stay loyal paying customers. And yes sadly thats IS what patches are for THESE days .They used to be for fixing unique bugs not found by the QA dept by release .

But are now used to fix multiple bugs/problems after release that should of been fixed before release that any 8 year old could of found. Just seems like good QA Dept's are becoming extinct or more likely they are just no allowed to hold up a game anymore for that finale polish that used to be the standard. IMO its like we are paying them to be their QA dept The gamers do now come up with most of the fixes or workarounds for games and have for awhile now.

Just think of it in terms of EA are the dealers, we are the game addicts. All they have to do is supply enough games to keep us hooked/happy. And they now know the quality does not have to be really high because we are hooked. But thats mostly the our fault for excepting that mediocre quality. And seems like most will except anything and force themselves not to see the problems with the end product. And just say ya its great stuff man. Its true and you guys know your doing it ,

But Ive pretty much given up on you guys . And this i think will be my last thread like this . But I'm not just going to get in line behind you all and follow . I just will not try and enlighten you guys anymore . But i will still voice my opinion of a game because i don't care how much i love a Dev for past games, they always have to keep proving themselves. And i will always give my HONEST opinion of how they did.

So... you've given up on us? Get in line and follow? Try and enlighten us? Seriously, is this what you think? I confess I struggle with really understanding the headspace you're in.  NetHack came out with bugs in 1985. Had patches. Worse bugs than DA:O came out with, that's for certain. Every single game I've ever seen since the 80s has had bugs. So has pretty much every single piece of software since the Babbage Difference Engine. Then again the first 'software' was written by the daughter of Lord Byron about 100 years ago so it's a great tradition.

Ultima V, 1988. I pick on that one a lot because it was the first computer game I really, really loved. It had bugs. Crashed sometimes. It couldn't have been more than like 10 meg in size. By the way? Was priced at something like $50. Maybe $39.99.

So, 22 years later we get a game that's like 8 gigabytes. More after installation. Platforms, game systems, computers and associated drivers are drastically more complicated than they have ever been. It's over a hundred hours of playtime for a single playthrough on one set of parameters. Several scales of complication more involved. For the same price.

Are you serious? Is this your first experience with computer games? Are you familiar with economics? Have you ever been involved in, or even known someone who's been involved in product QA, especially for software? I'm not trying to be a jerk here. Truly I'm not but I'm really getting a face-palm moment. Games have moved into the sphere of the serious entertainment industry. EA is a multi-billion dollar company. That games are still only $50 is an incredible achievement on its own given the drastic improvement in content.

I'm all for sharing your opinion, that's great. What would the internet be without people sharing their opinion like it's gosspel. I've certainly done it enough. I've just got to ask, are your expectations set by any sort of actual experience or familiarity with the nature of the product or is this just you saying 'I think gasoline should be free, that would fix the economy!'

Because that's on par with the logic you're trying to use. I've had this debate a ton of times and I'm certainly not going to waste your time and mine with re-quoting the actual facts on profit margins for EA, that sort of stuff. I realize it's not what's motivating you. The impression I get from your posts however is that you want to feel like you're getting taken advantage of by 'The Man' and that we should all be thankful that cunning, perceptive people like you are here keeping an eye on the big bad world for us and holding back the terrible economic evils that we would fall prey to if not for such enlightened guidance.

I certainly don't want to get into a you vs me writing-the-name-in-the-snow contest. I will say however that I'm pretty comfortable with my command of economics, quality assurance as it relates to product development, technical support pre and post production, marketing and distribution. Including the software industry. How both government and 'big business' work in fact. Comfortable enough to get paid to know what I know on the subject anyway. I don't agree with your opinions, at all. Which is fine, nobody has to. You certainly don't have to agree with mine.

Though entertainingly enough, by volume, level of complexity and time to produce I would say that most new computer games are better tested, more reliable and get more QA than any game in history. They're certainly held to higher standards than the food you eat. Also has a lower profit margin for the developer and producer.

[CptPatch]

grieferbastard wrote...
I've just got to ask, are your expectations set by any sort of actual experience or familiarity with the nature of the product or is this just you saying 'I think gasoline should be free, that would fix the economy!'

Yeah!  It's time for another Oktober Revolution!  The System is soooo broken and corrupted by Big Biz and Big Government, whatever we replace them with MUST be an improvement over what we have now!  Don't worry about the details; things will work themselves out optimally on their own.  Most likely.  Probably.  Wellllll, it couldn't get any worse, could it?

:lol:

Sorry.  Couldn't resist. 

Don't mind me.  I was....gone, there, for a bit.  Feeling much better now. 

[Ylvena]

I dont mind DLC in general, but with the issue of EA the OP has a point.

If anyone ever played the sims series it becomes very obvious its about milking the customer.

One good eksample of that was 1 week before release, the sims3 store filled up with content that should have been included in the game.( hair, clothes and a few ekstra furniture) Its not a conspiracy theory when it is that blatantly obvious. Not to blame the company for trying to make money in more ways. But they have ruined the sims series in a way.But of course if you dont like it dont buy the extra content i suppose.

[purplesunset]

Ylvena wrote...

I dont mind DLC in general, but with the issue of EA the OP has a point.
If anyone ever played the sims series it becomes very obvious its about milking the customer.
One good eksample of that was 1 week before release, the sims3 store filled up with content that should have been included in the game.( hair, clothes and a few ekstra furniture) Its not a conspiracy theory when it is that blatantly obvious. Not to blame the company for trying to make money in more ways. But they have ruined the sims series in a way.

But of course if you dont like it dont buy the extra content i suppose.

Yeah, you could devote an entire blog about how blatantly EA is milking the sims series, but I disagree with that last sentence.

At first, I used to believe that we could vote with our wallets. But "voting with your wallet" doesn't work very well when you're surrounded by gamers who willingly fork over their money like sheep being lead to the slaughter.

Businessess can and will push their limits. If they can screw you, they will, and they won't stop until enough people stop buying it. It is futile to argue from morality, because the only language businesses like EA understand is $$$money$$$. 

But as long  as there are suckers who will let themselves get ripped off, then everyone else suffers.  Even the people who choose not to buy  it still suffer because since the businesses are profitting from the suckers, they won't stop ripping people off.

So the old "vote with your wallet by not buying" doesn't work out so well when you're surrounded by people who willingly let themselves get cheated.

If a company releases an incomplete product and then charges money for the rest of the content, then even the people who don't buy the extra content suffer.  We still get less value for our money buy buying the incomplete product.

Modifié par purplesunset, 07 février 2010 - 05:12 .

[Legacy_QuEsT]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Also, was Bioware behind 9/11? Was Georg Zoeller the shooter on the grassy knoll? Did David Gaider write the dead sea scrolls?

lol the funniest thing i've read in a few weeks