234 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

DLC is far too profitable for companies to stop at this point. I really do think most games will run people $100 next gen. Not that some don't already, but sitll.

Given the prices of ME3's DLC, $130 or more is entirely likely

[katamuro]

They are putting the pricetag there because they can. Look at pc games. They cost slightly less at launch but over time their price falls dramatically. Console games usually stay at full price or get a bit cheaper but very slowly. As with everything if they can charge more they will after all the publishers still control the market. Only a large scale boycott of games would make a dent big enough for them to change their strategy.

[Jadebaby]

I never said stop dlc, but decrease it's presence, sure. I like dlc, when it is done right, I don't like dlc that doesn't need to be or downright shouldn't be dlc. Like From Ashes.

And not only do companies need to turn a profit on their products, but they need to turn enough of a profit to keep their business running. That's why when people say that Mass Effect 3 was a success because it made 70 million dollars. I say how much did it really make when you take production costs out of it?

[rohanks]

Jadebaby wrote...

I'm not talking about just EA when I speak about the nickle-diming DLC. Other companies do it too and it's becoming quite an infuriating trend.

...and the new trend is Day 1 DLC.  I waited for ME3 to drop in price because I'm not paying top dollar for a product that consistently depreciates in price 3-6 months from release if you play on PC.

But Day 1 DLC?  The F@ck?!? This is content within the production budget of the base game. And assuming you didn't buy the ME3 Collector's Edition. To offer Day 1 DLC containing a character (Javik) whose species is part of the fundamental lore of the MEU is cynical huckstering.

Modifié par rohanks, 20 juillet 2013 - 04:29 .

[AresKeith]

This really does suck for UK games, at the moment

[N7recruit]

Jadebaby wrote...

N7recruit wrote...

Jadebaby wrote...

Like I said, so long as it stops nickle-diming dlc, I'll buy the first copy and smile while I hand over the money.

Why would a price increace stop Micro transactions & gimicy DLC? I know you Aussie's have it tough when it comes to buying games but I mean you can just still pay $100 dollars (€60 here in Ireland) without buying **** DLC or Pay $120 and still not buy the **** DLC because it's not going away no matter the price of the Base game. Like this is EA we are talking about here:P

I'm not talking about just EA when I speak about the nickle-diming DLC. Other companies do it too and it's becoming quite an infuriating trend.

Why I think increasing the price of the base game would help is due to the fact that because these games are so overdue for a price increase. I atest that to the dlc-whoring as a means of compensating.

But a price increace for the sake of 1 is BS for me. They make money on day 1 DLC, they make money microtransactions & they make money on Wepon packs. To justify a 33% price increace these-next gen games have to kick the absolute **** out of the ones we are currently playing. 

+ what about the triple A games that don't have the massive following of Fifa or Battlefeild? Like DAI for example, newcomers to the series will be more reluctant in splashing €80 on an unproven brand. Hell I'd be less inclined to purchase a new ip for €80 & I'd end up buying less games. 

I just don't see how this is benifiting us is all. Most gamers are middle class/lower middle class earners in Ireland anywho. 

[dreamgazer]

Jadebaby wrote...

And not only do companies need to turn a profit on their products, but they need to turn enough of a profit to keep their business running. That's why when people say that Mass Effect 3 was a success because it made 70 million dollars. I say how much did it really make when you take production costs out of it?

Enough to greenlight another Mass Effect game, apparently. 

[Iakus]

Morocco Mole wrote...
We are at a point where a game selling millions of copies is no longer making back production costs. Which is why we have things like micro-transactions, pre-order bonuses, and yes, developers trying to cut out the used game market. And the increasing focus on day 1 DLC.

problem here at least is that game quality is not reflected in increased prices.

Games are rapidly becoming disposable commodoties.  Play the game once and toss it aside or trade it in.  Next year or the year after, buy the sequel.  Repeat.

For these prices, I want something worth replaying.  I want value for dollar.  I want a game (not just a franchise) that will still be around and still worth playing a decade later.

[TheProtheans]

Morocco Mole wrote...

If we were all like Dreamgazer then the next gen would require online to play as the console development costs were going up and the publishers and console manufacturers needed to cut out the owned game market as it was not making them money to help cover costs for the games.
It's the same logic as it is about making more money.

We are at a point where a game selling millions of copies is no longer making back production costs. Which is why we have things like micro-transactions, pre-order bonuses, and yes, developers trying to cut out the used game market. And the increasing focus on day 1 DLC.

Games could be $100 and you would still be paying for DLC's and probably $20 for each DLC on average.
Their job is too make as much profit as possible, this EA we're talking about.
The company who throws out sports every year when they could just update them if they really supported the customer and release a new game when they made a worthwhile improvement.
But no they're milking a cow, they're not going to stop now.

It is naive to think they will settle to not milk more from the customers.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 20 juillet 2013 - 04:35 .

[Jadebaby]

It would never be a price increase for the sake of one.

And I'm sure if they were to up the price by such a margin, they would cut-back on things like micro-transactions and weapon packs lest the games industry crash again because people can't afford what they're asking.

So hypothetically, what would you like to see more? Increased pricing of base game, or continuation of micro-transactions and nickle-diming dlc?

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

Games are rapidly becoming disposable commodoties.  Play the game once and toss it aside or trade it in.  Next year or the year after, buy the sequel.  Repeat.

Games have been like that for quite a while, iakus.

For these prices, I want something worth replaying.  I want value for dollar.  I want a game (not just a franchise) that will still be around and still worth playing a decade later.

You might get it. That's information we don't have yet, though, which depends on how studios use their resources.

There are games I've purchased this generation that I'll continue playing well into the next generation. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 20 juillet 2013 - 04:40 .

[AresKeith]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Which is of course going to bite the industry in the ass. If you pay attention to the signs and trends of the industry, you can tell another videogame crash is looming over the horizon.

If it makes them get their head out their ass then I say let it happen

But according to the article, it's only happening in UK for now so we'll see how that turns out

[dreamgazer]

TheProtheans wrote...

It is naive to think they will settle to not milk more from the customers.

It's also naive to think that you can expect the same quality and quantity for the same price you've been paying for the better part of ten years.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 20 juillet 2013 - 04:43 .

[AresKeith]

Jadebaby wrote...

It would never be a price increase for the sake of one.

And I'm sure if they were to up the price by such a margin, they would cut-back on things like micro-transactions and weapon packs lest the games industry crash again because people can't afford what they're asking.

So hypothetically, what would you like to see more? Increased pricing of base game, or continuation of micro-transactions and nickle-diming dlc?

Why would an increase in price stop them from doing micro-transactions and nickle-diming dlcs?

[TheProtheans]

Jadebaby wrote...

It would never be a price increase for the sake of one.

And I'm sure if they were to up the price by such a margin, they would cut-back on things like micro-transactions and weapon packs lest the games industry crash again because people can't afford what they're asking.

So hypothetically, what would you like to see more? Increased pricing of base game, or continuation of micro-transactions and nickle-diming dlc?

I'm pretty sure the Call of duty map packs rising to 1200 MSP after COD 4 was a price increase for the sake of it.
You could argue the same for Mass effect 3 from Mass effect 2.
Mass effect 3 certainly didn't cut back on micro transactions if you did argue it was a price increase for the sake of it.

1) I would like to the see the price going up and DLC's been free/cheaper( or whatever you want as I probably want that too) but that isn't going to happen.
2) My next ideal situation would be it staying as it is which is nickle and diming DLC.


Option 1) would be better as I would not be buying the game at release and can get DLC cheaper but I can still feel like I am helping the gaming industry.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 20 juillet 2013 - 05:08 .

[rohanks]

iakus wrote...

For these prices, I want something worth replaying.  I want value for dollar.  I want a game (not just a franchise) that will still be around and still worth playing a decade later.

It may be about finding the smaller independent game developers for that particular 'X-factor'. Assuming their product is a genre that you are interested in playing.

The way that games are distributed has changed drastically in the past 10 years I have been playing. More use of digitally licensed downloads and less on direct retail and distribution of hard media.

But I am looking back when I think about Looking Glass Studios (Thief 1 & 2) and looking to the present with Playdead (LIMBO). 

Modifié par rohanks, 20 juillet 2013 - 04:49 .

[tanisha__unknown]

I don't know how much production costs really developed, but if we assume that for the games to come they are roughly equal to what they are now, EA is about to print money.

Usually your profitability is measured against your revenue. Where I live, supermarkets are not very profitable, around 3 % of their revenue is actually gain. Let's assume EA is fairly profitable and the rate is at 10%. Now they increase the prize by 20 $. Games usually cost around 60 $, that means it is an increase by around 33%. We assumed that costs stayed the same, that means they essentially quadruple their gain.

[N7recruit]

Jadebaby wrote...

It would never be a price increase for the sake of one.

And I'm sure if they were to up the price by such a margin, they would cut-back on things like micro-transactions and weapon packs lest the games industry crash again because people can't afford what they're asking.

So hypothetically, what would you like to see more? Increased pricing of base game, or continuation of micro-transactions and nickle-diming dlc?

Personally I try not to buy rubbish DLC if I can be smart about it by taking off my FanBoy cap .

The last DLC i bought for any game was Leviathan. I took a chance on it, didn't like it so I stopped supporting ME3's DLC. 
I never purchase any form of Microtransactions ( I just don't get how gamers can be that foolish with their money)& the only wepons pack I ever bought was in ME2.

So A rise in base price to combat **** add on content that I already avoid does not benifit me at all. I don't need a price increace to do what my common sence as a consumer can for free.

If a price jump is necessary to avoid a crash? Ok I'll play ball, but others won't. Most of my friends don't give two ****s about the publisher's/developers.

I'm curious as to What would be your ideal way of tackling this problem of rubbish add on content without hurting the Devs or screwing the consumer. Jade?

[Iakus]

rohanks wrote...

iakus wrote...

For these prices, I want something worth replaying.  I want value for dollar.  I want a game (not just a franchise) that will still be around and still worth playing a decade later.

It may be about finding the smaller independent game developers for that particular 'X-factor'. Assuming their product is a genre that you are interested in playing.

The way that games are distributed has changed drastically in the past 10 years I have been playing. More use of digitally licensed downloads and less on direct retail and distribution of hard media.

But I am looking back when I think about Looking Glass Studios (Thief 1 & 2) and looking to the present with Playdead (LIMBO). 

This is why I'm a backer of Project Eternity and Torment: Tides of Numenera.  Also why I've been purchasing games at GoG, and have been keeping an eye on a couple of other independant projects. These things cost a fraction what these nextgen games look like they will cost.