532 réponses à ce sujet

[Jonathan Seagull]

Chris' original comment, though, was in direct response to a conversation about whether or not the game was being rushed. Not anything else, including DLC. If you want to broadly apply his followup to every other aspect of the development process, that's certainly your right. You feel that they have a habit of dishonesty, and are thus reluctant to believe some of their statements. That's fair enough, and understandable.

However, Javik was still no more complete on-disc or ready than has already been discussed.

But regardless, this conversation hasn't been about DAI for a long time (if it ever was), and I suspect no one is going to change anyone's mind, so I'll leave it there.

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 27 juillet 2013 - 09:10 .

[Fast Jimmy]

As Fast Jimmy has stated perception is a powerful thing. So if gamers perceive that Bioware has lied to them then nothing Bioware says will change that perception. So why should Bioware waste energy trying to so so? Far better that Bioware channel that energy into a excellent product with DA:I. That still will not satisfy some of the people who expected DA:O2.

Before I address this in particular, I'd say first that you are in unique position to understand the in's and out's of software design and can be more understanding of its realities. Therefore, your perception is more understanding. If, on the other hand, I were to tell someone with nine of that experience that I could enter a code and activate a companion for them to appear in your party without paying a dime, they'd think they were being ripped off in many cases. So which perception do you think is more likely or prevalent?

In regards to the above quote... this isn't like Bioware has no recourse here. They aren't cigarette salesman who can only sell a product which people will protest against. They sell video games - games which people enjoy (for the most part, at least). This thread is strictly a complaint about the method and model which they distributed.

The Shale DLC was heralded as a great gesture, because it was this same content, but free for the majority of players. So there exists a model which obviously didn't bankrupt Bioware (in my above fuzzy math, I even demonstrate that I find that promoting more new game sales would generate a roughly equivalent amount of revenue in a plausible situation) that they could use instead of presenting it in a way that is disliked.

This isn't a campaign against DLC. It isn't even against D1DLC, as long as it is used as a vehicle for encouraging New Game sales. And I've said in this thread earlier that they could avoid a lot of this negative press with a Week 3/4 DLC instead of a Day One. It's strictly a bad idea to have paid D1DLC if you want to avoid having a negative outlook by your fans.

[Seboist]

The best day one DLC is the one that doesn't exist.

[addiction21]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


Before I address this in particular, I'd say first that you are in unique position to understand the in's and out's of software design and can be more understanding of its realities. Therefore, your perception is more understanding. If, on the other hand, I were to tell someone with nine of that experience that I could enter a code and activate a companion for them to appear in your party without paying a dime, they'd think they were being ripped off in many cases. So which perception do you think is more likely or prevalent?

There is nothing unique about it. All you have to do is listen to those that have the experience. Instead what you do is perform a astounding amount of mental gymnastics and be willing ignorant to keep your perspective intact. So you can continue standing on your soap box preaching about how you know better.

Don't try and be coy. You are speaking about Javik and of course whatever you said would be half-truths and misinformation to lead them to the perception you want them to have.Just like the marketing and PR departments you decry.

[addiction21]

Seboist wrote...

The best day one DLC is the one that doesn't exist.

Would day 2 be okay? Day 3? What is the timeline that you would find acceptable for DLC to be released?

[jkflipflopDAO]

ShadowLordXII wrote...

Dear Bioware,

If this game must have a Day One DLC deal, make sure that it only features aestetics that we don't need like weapons and armor.

Do Not.

DO NOT.

Please, do not take a companion and related missions out of the core product to put them into a seperate DLC pack that's released right alongside the main game.  Make up whatever excuse that you want, if the resources are completed at the same time as the game, it should be included in the game.

The problem with Day One DLC deals in games like DA2 and ME3 was that we were being forced to pay an additional fee to essentially fill in a hole in your roster.  The ME3 deal is especially worst because of it's limited roster and the fact that you believed that a prothean squadmate wouldn't be something a ME fan would want.

With DA: O and ME2, it was alright because the character dlc's were free with new copies. Some will debate the overtone of punishing customers for buying used copies, but for what we got, it was decent. Especially since the code still worked even after the game's price dropped.

I know that the market is tough right now and you want DA: I to make a profit. You may have a passion for game development, but it's a business at the end of the day and a business needs to make money.

However, repeating the mistake of DA2 and ME3 regarding Day One DLC may cause a loss in profits. A lot of fans are already ticked off about those two games and having to shelve out more money to fill up a hole in their party after already paying full price for what could was marketed as a free game.  So please! If you must have a Day One DLC pack, make sure that it only features aesthitics that no one would honestly care about. Basically cool armor or cool weapons, somewhat in the same vein as pre-order stuff.

But an actual fully developed companion?

If you have to do that, just go the Shale route and provide a passcode for people who buy a new copy. But there is no need to charge money for something that should already be part of the core game. I'm not just saying this as a gamer who doesn't want to pay more money than I feel that I should, but also as an objective observer who sees how a marketing technique is causing more damage then good.  You're better off abandoning it altogether, but if you have to keep, find a way to lessen the damage so that you don't ignite remnant bad feelings.

Just offering helpful advice. If you've already heard this then feel free to ignore it.

Signed, An Excited yet Observant Fan

PS:  Can we have a Warden Background for the Inquisitor?

Bioware has 0 say in the matter. EA is running the show and they want MAXIMUM PROFITS!

[Fast Jimmy]

addiction21 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The best day one DLC is the one that doesn't exist.

Would day 2 be okay? Day 3? What is the timeline that you would find acceptable for DLC to be released?

Week 3 or 4, when sales begin to see the first slumps in sales and could use the jump in public interest again anyway. 

[jkflipflopDAO]

addiction21 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The best day one DLC is the one that doesn't exist.

Would day 2 be okay? Day 3? What is the timeline that you would find acceptable for DLC to be released?

You're willfully missing the point and being obtuse. DICE is right now working on DLC for Battlefield 4. The game isn't even out now and they have teams working on two DLC packs (at least). How could you possibly speak up in support of such things? They're taking resources away from making the game the best it can possibly be and putting them to making DLC designed to suck more cash out of the gamer.

It honestly makes me physically ill to think about it.

[Il Divo]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The best day one DLC is the one that doesn't exist.

Would day 2 be okay? Day 3? What is the timeline that you would find acceptable for DLC to be released?

You're willfully missing the point and being obtuse. DICE is right now working on DLC for Battlefield 4. The game isn't even out now and they have teams working on two DLC packs (at least). How could you possibly speak up in support of such things? They're taking resources away from making the game the best it can possibly be and putting them to making DLC designed to suck more cash out of the gamer.

It honestly makes me physically ill to think about it.

This is not necessarily true. Let's say I'm a publisher and I ascribe $50 to the development of some product. Let's say someone tells me about this dlc model designed to put out content for a game faster. It's possible that in addition to the $50 I'm normally putting out to a game that I also put out an additional $10 to fund the dlc devs. You're assuming that all developers are immediately cutting out dlc from that $50.

I'm not saying that what you suggest isn't happening, but merely working on dlc prior to release is not itself indicative of this.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The best day one DLC is the one that doesn't exist.

Would day 2 be okay? Day 3? What is the timeline that you would find acceptable for DLC to be released?

Week 3 or 4, when sales begin to see the first slumps in sales and could use the jump in public interest again anyway. 

So what I'm getting from this is that it's okay for developers to prepare dlc before a game is out, as long as they wait an extra 14 or so days after release before telling anyone about it?

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

As Fast Jimmy has stated perception is a powerful thing. So if gamers perceive that Bioware has lied to them then nothing Bioware says will change that perception. So why should Bioware waste energy trying to so so? Far better that Bioware channel that energy into a excellent product with DA:I. That still will not satisfy some of the people who expected DA:O2.

Before I address this in particular, I'd say first that you are in unique position to understand the in's and out's of software design and can be more understanding of its realities. Therefore, your perception is more understanding. If, on the other hand, I were to tell someone with nine of that experience that I could enter a code and activate a companion for them to appear in your party without paying a dime, they'd think they were being ripped off in many cases. So which perception do you think is more likely or prevalent?

In regards to the above quote... this isn't like Bioware has no recourse here. They aren't cigarette salesman who can only sell a product which people will protest against. They sell video games - games which people enjoy (for the most part, at least). This thread is strictly a complaint about the method and model which they distributed.

The Shale DLC was heralded as a great gesture, because it was this same content, but free for the majority of players. So there exists a model which obviously didn't bankrupt Bioware (in my above fuzzy math, I even demonstrate that I find that promoting more new game sales would generate a roughly equivalent amount of revenue in a plausible situation) that they could use instead of presenting it in a way that is disliked.

This isn't a campaign against DLC. It isn't even against D1DLC, as long as it is used as a vehicle for encouraging New Game sales. And I've said in this thread earlier that they could avoid a lot of this negative press with a Week 3/4 DLC instead of a Day One. It's strictly a bad idea to have paid D1DLC if you want to avoid having a negative outlook by your fans.

Actally finding Javik on the disc is a little more involved than just entering a code. First it can only be done on a PC. It took a hex editor to be able to find the code. It then requires using a community-based tool to edit the file and changing a line in the code of the game and then booting the game up.  After doing this what does Javik contribute to the game? 

As Maria has noted the stuff on the disc was basically the character model and certain framework. You are correct if all you say is that you can enter a code and get Javik most people would share that prevelant opinion that Bioware ripped stuff from the disc to sell as dlc. 
I would explain the entire process to educate them to the fact it is not as simple as some would have it seem and basically only works on the PC. Also that none of the From the Ashes dlc was included on the disc aside from the character model and framework.

Nothing in the video where all of this erupted shows any footage from that dlc. Why? Because it is not on the disc. That is why a 600+MB download is necessary to access it. 

[Realmzmaster]

Il Divo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The best day one DLC is the one that doesn't exist.

Would day 2 be okay? Day 3? What is the timeline that you would find acceptable for DLC to be released?

Week 3 or 4, when sales begin to see the first slumps in sales and could use the jump in public interest again anyway. 

So what I'm getting from this is that it's okay for developers to prepare dlc before a game is out, as long as they wait an extra 14 or so days after release before telling anyone about it?

Fast Jimmy is working from the assumption that gamers would perceived the dlc in a different light and feel less ripped off if the dlc is delayed even if they worked on it at the same time as the base game with a different team.

[LPPrince]

Il Divo wrote...

So what I'm getting from this is that it's okay for developers to prepare dlc before a game is out, as long as they wait an extra 14 or so days after release before telling anyone about it?

I believe this is what happened with Borderlands 2, though I could be wrong.

[Plaintiff]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The best day one DLC is the one that doesn't exist.

Would day 2 be okay? Day 3? What is the timeline that you would find acceptable for DLC to be released?

You're willfully missing the point and being obtuse. DICE is right now working on DLC for Battlefield 4. The game isn't even out now and they have teams working on two DLC packs (at least). How could you possibly speak up in support of such things? They're taking resources away from making the game the best it can possibly be and putting them to making DLC designed to suck more cash out of the gamer.

It honestly makes me physically ill to think about it.

No resources are being taken away from the game. Publishers apportion resources according to how much money they think the product will make, and the budget is further broken down into smaller budgets for the development of each feature.

They're not going to funnel endless money into a product that's only going to cost $60 no matter what. If the concept of DLC did not exist, then neither would the content that is sold as DLC.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 juillet 2013 - 11:24 .

[billy the squid]

Plaintiff wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

The best day one DLC is the one that doesn't exist.

Would day 2 be okay? Day 3? What is the timeline that you would find acceptable for DLC to be released?

You're willfully missing the point and being obtuse. DICE is right now working on DLC for Battlefield 4. The game isn't even out now and they have teams working on two DLC packs (at least). How could you possibly speak up in support of such things? They're taking resources away from making the game the best it can possibly be and putting them to making DLC designed to suck more cash out of the gamer.

It honestly makes me physically ill to think about it.

No resources are being taken away from the game. Publishers apportion resources according to how much money they think the product will make, and the budget is further broken down into smaller budgets for the development of each feature.

They're not going to funnel endless money into a product that's only going to cost $60 no matter what. If the concept of DLC did not exist, then neither would the content that is sold as DLC.

Oh really? So Capcom's already on disc DLC bull**** is a fantasy then?

While it certainly doesn't take anything away from the main game's development, it's a cynical attempt to ensure preorder numbers, combined with review embargoes, to maintain high first week sales, even if the game is a pile of crap.

Or haven't you noticed the trend towards subsequent DLC being partitioned from the main game, like Javik in ME3.

[UnderlAlDyingSun]

I'm sure EA dictates those prospects, NOT BW ( Id hope atleast ).

Only request you need to make...HAVE NONE. It's tiresome bs like these that ruins games. Stop going the route of Capcom eh, we all see where they've ended up.

[Fast Jimmy]

There is nothing unique about it. All you have to do is listen to those that have the experience. Instead what you do is perform a astounding amount of mental gymnastics and be willing ignorant to keep your perspective intact. So you can continue standing on your soap box preaching about how you know better.

Don't try and be coy. You are speaking about Javik and of course whatever you said would be half-truths and misinformation to lead them to the perception you want them to have.Just like the marketing and PR departments you decry.

No need for hostility or outright insults, sir. I've not been angry or agitated during this conversation.

My posts in this thread have shown that I understand the principles behind Day One DLC and why it exists in the form that it does. And, as I've said multiple times, that is totally irrelevant. Because who hears of a questionable business practice and then says "I'm going to go research this more to find out exactly why people are saying this and determine if there were factors at play int be company and industry that might not make them to blame!"

Very few and far between.

How many people looked to see if the banks people vilify like Bank of America that are now foreclosing on people's houses actually were just doing what their customers asked them to originally (which is to say, lower the restrictions on getting home loans). Or how oil companies try and keep their upkeep and maintenance practices lower than may be overly precautions because people cry about the price at the pump all the time? Or who actually find out that companies who outsource jobs to third world countries wind up hiring workers with MBA and doctorates in those countries, as opposed to the GED requirement that it may have required to keep costs low enough to do such tasks as call center jobs.

None of the above companies are saints. And Bioware's trespasses with D1DLC pale in comparison to some of the acts I just went through. But there are always two sides to every story... and very few people go out of their way before making their mind up, especially consumers looking to spend their money.

For every one person that researched D1DLC to find out its origins, its actual placement in the development cycle and its nature due to software, there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of players who only see the surface of D1DLC and have a negative (or, at least, dismissive) viewpoint on it.

The best way to counter such widespread negativity isn't to try and educate the in's and out's of development concerns, certification guidelines, budgetary concerns and release schedules... the best way is to change the policy. Even a small change, such as releasing the DLC 15, 20 or 30 days afterwards, trifling though that may be to the reality of things, would alleviate a lot of negative perception.

It's a question of does Bioware risk losing some of their D1DLC profits to try this out (or to switch back to a "New Copy" free DLC model) or to risk this negative perception never going away and, possibly, increasing at a geometric rate.

[KENNY4753]

well Im fine with D1DLC mainly because it was either dlc or not at all. seeing as I will pre-order and buy DAI on release day I could care less.

[Fast Jimmy]

Actally finding Javik on the disc is a little more involved than just entering a code. First it can only be done on a PC. It took a hex editor to be able to find the code. It then requires using a community-based tool to edit the file and changing a line in the code of the game and then booting the game up. After doing this what does Javik contribute to the game?

These (and the rest of the post it came from) are details. People's perceptions aren't molded by details - they are molded by impressions. You don't convince people that something is okay by giving them the details. This may work on a one-on-one basis (especially in person), but for mass, group communication it fails.

Again, it's why I would say to go with a slightly modified approach, one that gives the right impression and doesn't change the reality of circumstances all that much. It is the perfect balance for a company to take.

[Fast Jimmy]

Fast Jimmy is working from the assumption that gamers would perceived the dlc in a different light and feel less ripped off if the dlc is delayed even if they worked on it at the same time as the base game with a different team.

I'm not sure you can really say this is an assumption of mine. Dozens of games have had DLC released within the first month - fleshed out, story DLC, not just weapon packs - but were not actually released on Day 1. Many of these were tied to pre-order deals, just like Bioware's D1DLC. I'm unaware of if any of that content was on disc, but I'd say it's a real possibility.

But Bioware gets crucified for Day One releases and other developers get by with no complaint with delaying DLC a few weeks, even though it is painfully obvious that the content was developed far outside of that time frame.

I'd say it is something other developers are doing and are doing fairly successfully. Which makes Bioware just look a little dim by comparison.

[Realmzmaster]

Let me use the Shale Stone Prisonerdlc as an example. The content for Shale was originally cut because Bioware could not get it to work to meet the deadline. As we know the deadline got pushed back so that the console versions could be developed. During this time a small part of the team continued to work on the Stone Prisoner which meant that more development costs were incurred for the PC version and the Stone Prisoner had to be converted for the consoles (more development cost).
Bioware/EA ate the cost and gave the Stone Prisoner away for free. That is not a sustainable model for business. That simply cuts into the profits. While is maybe a sound goodwill gesture, financially it is not. A public company will take a lot of heat from their investors if it tried to do that all the time. In fact you can almost guarantee some replacements would be coming in the board and management.
The dlc model allows cut content that may not see the light of day to see that light. If the company thinks it can make money on the dlc then it will put money toward its further development.

Without the dlc model the cut content would probably remain on the cutting room floor. Now some gamers would say they could save it for an expansion. The problem is that expansions take time and never sell as well as the base product. For example Origins sold 4.4 million copies Awakening sold 720,000 or roughly 15% of Origins sales.

Now that may or may not be good for an expansion. I wanted to try and compare that to a game released near the same time so I picked Fallout 3 which sold 4.1 million copies on the Xbox. The first game pack sold 230,000 copies or 5%. The base game was released October 28, 2008. The first add on was released January of 2009.

So waiting for to release new content does not seem to do well for publishers. The figures have be taken with a ton of salt since I do not have access to digital downloads.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Actally finding Javik on the disc is a little more involved than just entering a code. First it can only be done on a PC. It took a hex editor to be able to find the code. It then requires using a community-based tool to edit the file and changing a line in the code of the game and then booting the game up. After doing this what does Javik contribute to the game?

These (and the rest of the post it came from) are details. People's perceptions aren't molded by details - they are molded by impressions. You don't convince people that something is okay by giving them the details. This may work on a one-on-one basis (especially in person), but for mass, group communication it fails.

Again, it's why I would say to go with a slightly modified approach, one that gives the right impression and doesn't change the reality of circumstances all that much. It is the perfect balance for a company to take.

So basically you are saying that one should allow people to remain in their ignorance rather than educate them and make them more informed consumers?