532 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

But they didn't give it away for free. They gave it away for free to those who bought new copies of the game. Then they sold it to those who bought used.

This promotes new game sales (which result in a 100% increase in revenue and profit, since developers/publishers don't see a dime of used game sales) and also earns revenue for those in the used game market who bought the game on discount and are intrigued by the DLC in question (just li every other piece of DLC).

I'll quote my above made up math in case you didn't see it. If you sell 500,000 copies of D1DLC at $10 a pop, that's $5 million in revenue. Not bad.

But let's say you give that DLC away for new copies. And let's say that it results in just 5% of your sales to be new copies instead of players who would have bought used. For even a modestly successful game like DA2, that is 100,000 units. This would result in (at $60 a pop) $6 million in additional revenue, revenue not seen if these players had bought used. Factor in maybe an additional 50,000 users who did buy used and also want the DLC and you've got $6.5 million total in revenue.

Now, the DLC sales may be more (although I doubt exponentially so). And the uptake method of used game gamers to new game might be lower (but 5% is fairly conservative, in my estimation). But it still puts the two models neck and neck and if there is consumer goodwill with one and a PR nightmare with the other... why even risk it?

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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?

As an individual, I always strive to learn more and am also more than happy to share my knowledge and perspective with others. 

But as a company, your job cannot be to educate the masses unless you are a for-profit school. It is a losing proposition, especially when others can come in right behind you and plant the seed of doubt so easily in your words. 

Changing policy to keep your consumers happy, but your processes and bottom line stable is the JOB of a marketing department. Given the beating Bioware has taken over the last four years, I'm blown away their PR/Marketing team hasn't been gutted thrice times over. 

[wolfhowwl]

billy the squid wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Oh yes. The other way around too. If BioWare suddenly stops making games, a lot of very invested people are going to be left in the cold. The reality is we need stories more than they need money. They're talented people, they would all be snatched up by other companies quickly. We don't have that luxury.

edited: removed inflammatory comments ~Mod05

David, have you played any of the Dragon Age games yet?

You're just asking to be deported back to the Mass Effect forums.

Modifié par BioWareMod05, 29 juillet 2013 - 03:00 .

[Maria Caliban]

LPPrince wrote...

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.

They offered a Season Pass on day one, which means they got a larger chunk of money faster than if they'd just offered day one DLC AND they could hold off longer on releasing DLC.

I think it's a good model and BioWare might try it, but I'll also admit that I usually finish BioWare games the week they come out. Having to wait 14 days for a new class to play isn't the same as having to wait 14 days for a companion to join the game.

[David7204]

billy the squid wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Oh yes. The other way around too. If BioWare suddenly stops making games, a lot of very invested people are going to be left in the cold. The reality is we need stories more than they need money. They're talented people, they would all be snatched up by other companies quickly. We don't have that luxury.

edited: removed inflammatory comments ~Mod05

Really? Do elaborate.

Modifié par BioWareMod05, 29 juillet 2013 - 03:00 .

[AresKeith]

 Hey David, here's a thread I want you to see 

http://social.biowar...ndex/17048700/1

[Sylvius the Mad]

Personally, I think Day 1 DLC makes a lot of sense.

The content in the core game gets locked down some time before release (because the physical media needs to be manufactured and distributed), and even before that the primary work being done on it is polish.

At that point, many of the developers, like the writers, haven't touched the game in quite some time, except perhaps to do QA. So why not put them to work on DLC? Day 1 DLC is just a more efficient distribution of labour.

Day 1 DLC seems also to be a way to reduce the industry wide trend to reduce staffing levels as soon as a game is shipped. These are people - let them keep their jobs.

[Weskerr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Personally, I think Day 1 DLC makes a lot of sense.

The content in the core game gets locked down some time before release (because the physical media needs to be manufactured and distributed), and even before that the primary work being done on it is polish.

At that point, many of the developers, like the writers, haven't touched the game in quite some time, except perhaps to do QA. So why not put them to work on DLC? Day 1 DLC is just a more efficient distribution of labour.

Day 1 DLC seems also to be a way to reduce the industry wide trend to reduce staffing levels as soon as a game is shipped. These are people - let them keep their jobs.

Will all due respect to the developers, it is not our responsibility to ensure their job security or better the way they organize their work.

Modifié par Weskerr, 28 juillet 2013 - 02:59 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Personally, I think Day 1 DLC makes a lot of sense.

The content in the core game gets locked down some time before release (because the physical media needs to be manufactured and distributed), and even before that the primary work being done on it is polish.

At that point, many of the developers, like the writers, haven't touched the game in quite some time, except perhaps to do QA. So why not put them to work on DLC? Day 1 DLC is just a more efficient distribution of labour.

Day 1 DLC seems also to be a way to reduce the industry wide trend to reduce staffing levels as soon as a game is shipped. These are people - let them keep their jobs.

You are advocating DLC as a model. Which has proven itself quite effective at keeping resources, assets and staff engaged during large project objectives. Selling it on the first day as the base game is what results in problems.

As others have posted above me, a 14 day delay has been successful in avoiding bad stigma and publicity. Silly though that may be, it would result in people keeping their jobs AND consumers not feeling cheated. Why not engage in that?

Then again, the Shale model of free DLC for all new copies also is a great balance. Available the first day, but resulting in less lost revenue through used copies. 

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Personally, I think Day 1 DLC makes a lot of sense.

The content in the core game gets locked down some time before release (because the physical media needs to be manufactured and distributed), and even before that the primary work being done on it is polish.

At that point, many of the developers, like the writers, haven't touched the game in quite some time, except perhaps to do QA. So why not put them to work on DLC? Day 1 DLC is just a more efficient distribution of labour.

Day 1 DLC seems also to be a way to reduce the industry wide trend to reduce staffing levels as soon as a game is shipped. These are people - let them keep their jobs.

You are advocating DLC as a model. Which has proven itself quite effective at keeping resources, assets and staff engaged during large project objectives. Selling it on the first day as the base game is what results in problems.

As others have posted above me, a 14 day delay has been successful in avoiding bad stigma and publicity. Silly though that may be, it would result in people keeping their jobs AND consumers not feeling cheated. Why not engage in that?

Then again, the Shale model of free DLC for all new copies also is a great balance. Available the first day, but resulting in less lost revenue through used copies. 

I just can't see waiting to release DLC will make that much of a difference besides reducing the numbers of people that might purchase it, for I don't know many people that if they are done playing a game would return to it to play DLC.  If people stopped using the logic that all DLC is content cut from the game to gouge players I could see it happening, but people use that same arguement against all the DLC for Mass Effect 3.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

If you don't know people who are still playing a game two weeks to a month after it comes out... well, I question how many people you know, or how terrible of games they play on a regular basis?

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

If you don't know people who are still playing a game two weeks to a month after it comes out... well, I question how many people you know, or how terrible of games they play on a regular basis?

Several people I know beat almost every game they buy in a week or less because they get engrossed in it and play it to finish and never touch it again.  Other times they game is not what they expected so they take it back to GameStop to trade it in for maximum value.

[deuce985]

Consdiering over 40% of the 1 million+ gamers who bought ME3 on the first day bought the Javik DLC, I think it's safe to say this is going to happen again in DA:I. That's a huge attachment rate for any DLC. It didn't bother me personally because I got that DLC free with my ME3 SE. I could see why it would upset some people though. Javik was the best companion in ME3 and he revealed critical lore that you wouldn't see unless you had him in your party. He completely changed how I see the Asari, Protheans and organic life in general.

I use to be upset about day 1 DLC but I realized gaming now is just too expensive. I still don't condone actions like Capcom does in their games. They lock content on the disc and make you pay for a simple code to unlock it. Now that's ridiculous. In ME3's case, that DLC was supposedly not done until after they completed ME3 and was not locked on the disc. I think that's fine.

The gaming industry as a whole has major mangement issues and can't seem to offset the high costs they're going through. This is their way to make extra money off a product to offset budget and increase higher revenue streams. The consumers will always be on the receiving end of this until management finds cheaper more streamlined means to make AAA games. I think the transition into this past generation happened so fast with the SD to HD development transition and bigger teams. Budgets soared because of many factors(transitional development, SD to HD, PS3 hard to develop on, bigger teams, etc.)  It kinda caught everyone by surprise. Hopefully this generation we'll see more streamlined and efficient ways to manage budget since the consoles should be easy to develop on now.

Modifié par deuce985, 28 juillet 2013 - 05:35 .

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

If you don't know people who are still playing a game two weeks to a month after it comes out... well, I question how many people you know, or how terrible of games they play on a regular basis?

Actually I know many gamers who play the game extensively in the first week of release and finish it. They then move on to the next game. So if the dlc is not there in the first week they do not go back and play the game again when the dlc is released. Maybe one of the reasons that expansions and dlc released later does not sell as well.

I believe Maria Caliban stated that she plays and finishes  Bioware games in the first week.

Then there is also the inability to get the dlc or expansion to work with certain hardware like Dawnguard and the PS3 until recently. Almost nine months after the Xbox release and 7 months after the PC release of Dawnguard. That will most definitely crush sales.

If I am not wrong the Awakening expansion for DAO came out five months later and did only 720,000 in sales compared to DAO's 4.4 million as I stated before. If the expansion release was closer to Origins release date there is a possibility that sales would have been better. But then again maybe not. This is all conjecture.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 28 juillet 2013 - 05:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You are advocating DLC as a model. Which has proven itself quite effective at keeping resources, assets and staff engaged during large project objectives. Selling it on the first day as the base game is what results in problems.

As others have posted above me, a 14 day delay has been successful in avoiding bad stigma and publicity. Silly though that may be, it would result in people keeping their jobs AND consumers not feeling cheated. Why not engage in that?

I don't care if consumers "feel" cheated.  They're not actually "being" cheated.  As such, they they feel cheated is entirely their own fault.

If they want to feel cheated, I'm inclinded to let them, and I'm certainly not going to engage in suboptimal business practices just to avoid hurting their feelings.

[chuckles471]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

If you don't know people who are still playing a game two weeks to a month after it comes out... well, I question how many people you know, or how terrible of games they play on a regular basis?

Actually I know many gamers who play the game extensively in the first week of release and finish it. They then move on to the next game. So if the dlc is not there in the first week they do not go back and play the game again when the dlc is released. Maybe one of the reasons that expansions and dlc released later does not sell as well.

I believe Maria Caliban stated that she plays and finishes  Bioware games in the first week.

Then there is also the inability to get the dlc or expansion to work with certain hardware like Dawnguard and the PS3 until recently. Almost nine months after the Xbox release and 7 months after the PC release of Dawnguard. That will most definitely crush sales.

If I am not wrong the Awakening expansion for DAO came out five months later and did only 720,000 in sales compared to DAO's 4.4 million as I stated before. If the expansion release was closer to Origins release date there is a possibility that sales would have been better. But then again maybe not. This is all conjecture.

Y'known Dawnguard is still the second top selling DLC on Playstation store right now.

The list just to show what still sells.

1. Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep.
2. Dawnguard
3.COD Zombies
4.Citadel
5.Most Wanted Ultimate speed
6. Tyranny of King Washington
7.BF3 End Game
8.Grid 2 Modifiers
9. Artorias of the Abyss.
10.GT5 more cars

Nope, DLC still sells even if the game has been out for a while.  I think Bioware forgets that they need to make a quality DLC before it will sell well(Citadel).  All this day one DLC sales PR nonsense is just trying hide that they usually make very average DLC compared to the main game.  And Average doesn't shift units and doesn't get people back to a game.

Modifié par chuckles471, 28 juillet 2013 - 10:17 .

[billy the squid]

David7204 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Oh yes. The other way around too. If BioWare suddenly stops making games, a lot of very invested people are going to be left in the cold. The reality is we need stories more than they need money. They're talented people, they would all be snatched up by other companies quickly. We don't have that luxury.

edited: removed inflammatory comments ~Mod05

Really? Do elaborate.

I'm not in the habit of making crayon join the dots to point out the obvious for people.

Modifié par BioWareMod05, 29 juillet 2013 - 03:00 .

[Sanunes]

chuckles471 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

If you don't know people who are still playing a game two weeks to a month after it comes out... well, I question how many people you know, or how terrible of games they play on a regular basis?

Actually I know many gamers who play the game extensively in the first week of release and finish it. They then move on to the next game. So if the dlc is not there in the first week they do not go back and play the game again when the dlc is released. Maybe one of the reasons that expansions and dlc released later does not sell as well.

I believe Maria Caliban stated that she plays and finishes  Bioware games in the first week.

Then there is also the inability to get the dlc or expansion to work with certain hardware like Dawnguard and the PS3 until recently. Almost nine months after the Xbox release and 7 months after the PC release of Dawnguard. That will most definitely crush sales.

If I am not wrong the Awakening expansion for DAO came out five months later and did only 720,000 in sales compared to DAO's 4.4 million as I stated before. If the expansion release was closer to Origins release date there is a possibility that sales would have been better. But then again maybe not. This is all conjecture.

Y'known Dawnguard is still the second top selling DLC on Playstation store right now.

The list just to show what still sells.

1. Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep.
2. Dawnguard
3.COD Zombies
4.Citadel
5.Most Wanted Ultimate speed
6. Tyranny of King Washington
7.BF3 End Game
8.Grid 2 Modifiers
9. Artorias of the Abyss.
10.GT5 more cars

Nope, DLC still sells even if the game has been out for a while.  I think Bioware forgets that they need to make a quality DLC before it will sell well(Citadel).  All this day one DLC sales PR nonsense is just trying hide that they usually make very average DLC compared to the main game.  And Average doesn't shift units and doesn't get people back to a game.

The information for a statement like you are making is missing from this list and thats total sales for all DLC (I know we will never have that information). Even if its #2 right now, that doesn't really mean that it sold a higher number of sales compared to the primary game, for when they look at DLC sales and it still only sold a smaller percentage of the total games sold versus a much higher percentage for Day 1, I believe they would be inclined to continue with Day 1.

[Fast Jimmy]

Okay, I'm going to try to do a few follow-ups in one post.

Other times they game is not what they expected so they take it back to GameStop to trade it in for maximum value.

And do you really think those friends who burn through a game in a week, either due to frantic pace or it not being what they expect, would be prime targets to either pre-order a Collector's Edition or buy stand alone DLC for a game? My money is on no.

Consdiering over 40% of the 1 million+ gamers who bought ME3 on the first day bought the Javik DLC, I think it's safe to say this is going to happen again in DA:I.

Is there a source for these numbers? I'm actually going to use them to support my thoughts, so I'm not questioning them, I'd just like to know where they are from.

Because 40% of 1.5 million (I'm using the 1.5 since your number just said "+") is 600,000 units of DLC. That is six million in revenue. Which isn't bad... but if you could only transfer used game sales to new game sales, you'd only need to sell 100,000 units as new instead of used to cover this amount. That's only 6% of ME3's Day One sales and a mere 2.5% of ME:'s total 4-4.5 million units.

I'm just not convinced that offering free DLC to coerce into not buying used games can't result in as much, if not more, realized revenue... if the right marketing was put into it (nothing above or beyond what is put into the DLC as is, just with a slightly different spin).

If I am not wrong the Awakening expansion for DAO came out five months later and did only 720,000 in sales compared to DAO's 4.4 million as I stated before. If the expansion release was closer to Origins release date there is a possibility that sales would have been better. But then again maybe not. This is all conjecture.

I'd be curious if you were also counting the number of DA:O Ultimate editions, which included the Awakening expansion, in your numbers. Because that let them sell their game in retail stores at the base price over 18 months after release - something that should not, at all, be dismissed as an extremely powerful revenue stream.

I don't care if consumers "feel" cheated.  They're not actually "being" cheated.  As such, they they feel cheated is entirely their own fault.
If they want to feel cheated, I'm inclinded to let them, and I'm certainly not going to engage in suboptimal business practices just to avoid hurting their feelings.

YOU shouldn't. There is no logical reason for you to care about other gamers experiences.

But Bioware should care. This isn't middle school, where if kids think badly of you, you should just ignore them and go along your way. This is the business world. How your potential customers perceive you affects how they spend their money... and hence, how you stay in business.

I'll bring up the Consumerists "Worst Company in America" award really quick. This award is not anything substantial, nor is it any reflection of reality. But it DID gauge the perception of the half a million voters who named Bioware's parent company, EA, as he worst company on America two years in a row. One of the top cited reasons? Day One DLC. Day One DLC is grounds (in the minds of hundreds of thousands of people, apparently) to call a company the worst company in America.

Whether those people are logical, the poll valid or the award meaningful is, again... totally irrelevant. Reality does not matter when talking about perception, because perception quickly becomes the reality. And it is not just people who, quote/unquote "don't know any better." Not long after the Javik Day One DLC fiasco, Brent Knowles, former Bioware employee and Lead Director on BG2, NWN, Jade Empire and Dragon Age:Origins, said that he understands the project schedules, the financial benefits and the developer outlook on paid D1DLC better than most and, while he doesn't consider it immoral or wrong, he did say he finds it unfriendly to consumers and, to use his word, "tacky."

To truly understand why Bioware sticks with this model, I'd need to see more clear financials. Given my breakdown that it would be incredibly easy to replace direct revenue with encouraging new games versus used, it would suggest profit margins on DLC must be enormous (or the margins on retail games themselves are incredibly low). Because otherwise, it seems to make little sense to me to have a practice so widely disapproved of when other alternatives have been successful in the past.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 juillet 2013 - 12:28 .

[Volus Warlord]

billy the squid wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Oh yes. The other way around too. If BioWare suddenly stops making games, a lot of very invested people are going to be left in the cold. The reality is we need stories more than they need money. They're talented people, they would all be snatched up by other companies quickly. We don't have that luxury.

edited: removed inflammatory comments ~Mod05

QFT

I need money before I need stories.


Let me try to explain:

I have income (job(s)) and I have expenses(debts, insurance, food, whatever else is wrong with my house/car/body, etc.). 

If my income is way higher than my expenses, I may get a bit wasteful and spend it on frivalous nonsense like stories. 

I need money WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY more than I need stories. If I don't have $$, I can't get things I actually NEED, NEED meaning bare minimum to my survival and productivity. 

I'd like to have stories but I do not need them and if they suck I do not want them.

edited: removed inflammatory comments ~Mod05

Oh yes, and if BioWare stopped making games, I'd get games from somewhere else.  It's not hard. BioWare is far more expendable than you think. To us and to EA. Right now, we-for the most part-like what they've made. That changes, then meh. You make it sound as if they are some sort of mystical miracle workers. They-and video games as a whole-are more along the lines of snake oil salesman.

Modifié par BioWareMod05, 29 juillet 2013 - 03:01 .

[Ziegrif]

Never bought any of ME3 DLCs because there were no retail versions.
I don't trust Origin with any Credit card info.

I'm not against Day one DLC per se, what I am against however is Biowares way of selling DLC.
Sell codes or whatever, just make it retail! Steam has the Steam wallet system which has basically become my one true money sponge nowadays.

Or BW and EA could finally cave in and give a full package version FFS every game and ALL THEIR FRIGGING DLCS in one retail package.

[ScotGaymer]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


But they didn't give it away for free. They gave it away for free to those who bought new copies of the game. Then they sold it to those who bought used.

This promotes new game sales (which result in a 100% increase in revenue and profit, since developers/publishers don't see a dime of used game sales) and also earns revenue for those in the used game market who bought the game on discount and are intrigued by the DLC in question (just li every other piece of DLC).

I'll quote my above made up math in case you didn't see it. If you sell 500,000 copies of D1DLC at $10 a pop, that's $5 million in revenue. Not bad.

But let's say you give that DLC away for new copies. And let's say that it results in just 5% of your sales to be new copies instead of players who would have bought used. For even a modestly successful game like DA2, that is 100,000 units. This would result in (at $60 a pop) $6 million in additional revenue, revenue not seen if these players had bought used. Factor in maybe an additional 50,000 users who did buy used and also want the DLC and you've got $6.5 million total in revenue.

Now, the DLC sales may be more (although I doubt exponentially so). And the uptake method of used game gamers to new game might be lower (but 5% is fairly conservative, in my estimation). But it still puts the two models neck and neck and if there is consumer goodwill with one and a PR nightmare with the other... why even risk it?

Don't forget that Shale was also MUCH cheaper than Javik to those that had to buy it.

Javik - everyone had to pay for if they wanted him (the diff in price between CE and SE was the price of Javik). He filled a blatant hole in the roster.
Shale - Most people got her for free, and those that didn't paid like 3/4 dollars for her. And she didn't fill a hole in the roster but was a nice complement to the game.

Javik as Day One DLC just wasn't acceptable. Shale was.

[Sanunes]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Don't forget that Shale was also MUCH cheaper than Javik to those that had to buy it.

Javik - everyone had to pay for if they wanted him (the diff in price between CE and SE was the price of Javik). He filled a blatant hole in the roster.
Shale - Most people got her for free, and those that didn't paid like 3/4 dollars for her. And she didn't fill a hole in the roster but was a nice complement to the game.

Javik as Day One DLC just wasn't acceptable. Shale was.

Actually wasn't Shale more money if you weren't on the PC? For Shale costs $15 for the PS3 version, but from Ashes is $10 for the PS3 version.

Now as far as filling a hole, I don't consider Javik to be any more important as a class then Shale for the game is easily beaten without Javik and from when he is there, yes he might be the only Sentinal class if you don't have Kaiden, but unlike previous games there are less characters to play because people complained about how diluted the classes were in Mass Effect 2 because there were too many squad members.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Yes, but people don't say "Paid Day One DLC would be fine... as long as the right class is offered!"

People have a problem with the overall practice. Balancing the classes is putting a band-aid on an amputee and saying it's fixed.