Aller au contenu

Photo

simple Day One DLC request


532 réponses à ce sujet

#276
Sanunes

Sanunes
  • Members
  • 4 390 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

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.


I read their statement a lot different then you, for the way I read it the statement was "Day 1 DLC isn't bad, for Shale was good Day 1 DLC while Javik was bad Day 1 DLC".  So an arguement like that isn't saying the practice isn't bad, but the content offered was bad.

#277
SilentK

SilentK
  • Members
  • 2 620 messages
I've got no problem with day 1 dlc. It makes sense to keep people working even after you have sent away the content for printing. Also if the time in which dlc sels well is limited it is better to start right away. Since I always pre-order and get the CE everything has always been there for me right at the beginning.

#278
satunnainen

satunnainen
  • Members
  • 973 messages

Sanunes wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

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.


I read their statement a lot different then you, for the way I read it the statement was "Day 1 DLC isn't bad, for Shale was good Day 1 DLC while Javik was bad Day 1 DLC".  So an arguement like that isn't saying the practice isn't bad, but the content offered was bad.


hmh, Javik was bad (as day-1) because it was "significant", Shale was good because it was "insignificant". So there is your goal developers. Aim for a content no-one cares about and everyone will be happy? :)

#279
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages
^

You obviously didn't read any of the conversation you are now involving yourself in. Well done.

FitScott said the two companions were practically the same - non-essential to the game experience, but worthwhile to have.

They point where he made distinction was on price alone. Shale was good for being free and for being cheap for even those who bought used (less than the $10 companion DLC that is now the norm). He said Javik was bad because everyone had to buy it and it cost $10.

His distinctions of "good" versus "bad" had little to do with quality and most everything to do with price and distribution.

#280
Jonathan Seagull

Jonathan Seagull
  • Members
  • 418 messages
(I know I said I was done, so forgive me for this quick interruption)

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

You obviously didn't read any of the conversation you are now involving yourself in. Well done.

FitScott said the two companions were practically the same - non-essential to the game experience, but worthwhile to have.

They point where he made distinction was on price alone. Shale was good for being free and for being cheap for even those who bought used (less than the $10 companion DLC that is now the norm). He said Javik was bad because everyone had to buy it and it cost $10.

His distinctions of "good" versus "bad" had little to do with quality and most everything to do with price and distribution.

Except it wasn't.  He specifically states that (in his opinion) Javik fills a "blatant hole" while Shale is merely a nice addition.  The price was not the only distinction made.  Also, as Sanunes said, the comments about price are not entirely accurate.  I'm not sure if it changed at some point, or if there were differences somewhere, but I can confirm (as can a Google search) that at least some people who had to buy Shale paid $15 for her.

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 28 juillet 2013 - 10:45 .


#281
deuce985

deuce985
  • Members
  • 3 567 messages
@fast jimmy

Riccitello pointed out that 40 percent of the people who bought Mass Effect 3 at GameStop also purchased a download code for additional content.

http://www.pcmag.com...,2401368,00.asp

Keep in mind that's North America and doesn't account for PC numbers(likely). That was only one retail but I don't see how it would be very different from other ones. Then again, EA likes to spin those numbers. Also, it likely wasn't much different in other 1st world countries around the world where the game sold well. I'm speculating of course but I'm also using common sense.

What I've come to realize is people buy the hell out of Bioware DLC. They might not sell CoD numbers but they have a very devoted following who will eat the crap out of their DLC(me included). That's probably why all ME3 MP DLC was free. Keep you interested while they make money off the SP DLC and MTs from buying packs in MP.

Even if the final number wasn't 40%, it still had a pretty high attach rate regardless how you see it. Even if the number was only 25%. It says purchased codes not codes that came with boxed versions of ME3. I have no idea if EA considers ME3 a big financial success for them but I do know right after that game came out they reported their first profit in almost 5 years. Can't be a coincidence there.

As far as DLC quality goes, I believe Bioware makes great DLC compared to most other companies. If you want to see awful buy Dragon's Dogma or any Assassin's Creed game DLC. Dragon's Dogma might have some of the worst I've ever seen. To add insult to that it was all code locked to the disc. lol

Modifié par deuce985, 29 juillet 2013 - 03:43 .


#282
satunnainen

satunnainen
  • Members
  • 973 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

You obviously didn't read any of the conversation you are now involving yourself in. Well done.

FitScott said the two companions were practically the same - non-essential to the game experience, but worthwhile to have.

They point where he made distinction was on price alone. Shale was good for being free and for being cheap for even those who bought used (less than the $10 companion DLC that is now the norm). He said Javik was bad because everyone had to buy it and it cost $10.

His distinctions of "good" versus "bad" had little to do with quality and most everything to do with price and distribution.


My comment was more like a generic summary of peoples opinions in this thread, not specifically targeted at you or your comment. Earlier in this thread people were claiming that for example Javik was too integral part of the story, which made Javik as bad day one dlc and so on. 

That said I doubt many people would agree that the price of the DLC is the most important factor in quality. Personally I value the content first (good/bad) then the price before I decide to buy. Both factors are part of the buying decision but I would not call the price as an important part of the quality.

To put it simply: Either its good or bad and either it costs too much or not.

#283
ScotGaymer

ScotGaymer
  • Members
  • 1 983 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

You obviously didn't read any of the conversation you are now involving yourself in. Well done.

FitScott said the two companions were practically the same - non-essential to the game experience, but worthwhile to have.

They point where he made distinction was on price alone. Shale was good for being free and for being cheap for even those who bought used (less than the $10 companion DLC that is now the norm). He said Javik was bad because everyone had to buy it and it cost $10.

His distinctions of "good" versus "bad" had little to do with quality and most everything to do with price and distribution.



Actually they are correct.

Sorry.

As I said in my very first post on page 5/6 (i think) Javik and From Ashes was (arguably) a story and gameplay critical DLC. Javik is very very noticable by his absence. He fills the same role in the team that Wrex/Grunt did and if he isn't there and your Shep rescued Ashley then the only biotic (other and potentially shepard) that you have is Liara.
He is the party "vanguard" and slots into that space (sorta).

Shale on the other hand doesn't slot into any spaces in the roster because there aren't any spaces

Leliana is the party Archer/Thief.
Alistair is the party damage sponge/defensive warrior.
Wynne is the party healer.
Morrigan is the party wizard.
Zevran is the party stealth backstabber.
Oghren is the party damage dealer/offensive warrior.
Sten can fill the role of offense or defense fairly easily.
And Shale is the same as Sten.

We have 3 other characters that can potentially fill the role that shale potentially can. No one can fill the role that Javik can.

While interesting, fun, and diverting, DAO doesn't feel like its lost anything without her (though it certainly gains with her) whereas with Javik in ME3 that game most definately feels the lack of Javik.

EDIT:
I should say that i am not saying that Shale wasn't a worthwhile piece of DLC.

Non-Essential does not equal useless or pointless.

Shale was very worthwhile.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 29 juillet 2013 - 10:52 .


#284
Shevy

Shevy
  • Members
  • 1 080 messages
Considering BioWare's latest games, companion Day One DLC seems very likely and I have no problem with an additional companion coming with a DLC, but I think they should set the release date of it at 2-4 weeks after the game release.

I have of course no insight into the business and thus don't know if that would harm the DLC sales, but it would get rid off the feeling that it was content cut out of the game and sold for extra $$ at launch, while this ( in BioWare's case) doesn't seem to be the way. As far as I understand they are of course planed way before launch and developed at the the end of the development cycle and finished during the phase in which the main game is in production ( I read something like 6-8 weeks before release IIRC). So it seems like a gap filler.

#285
KDD-0063

KDD-0063
  • Members
  • 544 messages

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Gamers have taught me that if I buy a chair, I am entitled to the extra fluffy cushion without being charged extra. I mean, the cushion was there on day one~


Not exactly.

The fluffy cushion has always been in the industry. However, if you buy a used chair, you don't get the cushion.
Which is entirely normal, players accept that as a reward for supporting the company.

However, now things has changed.
EA ensures that every used chair is broken.
Suddenly there's no need for said cushion as reward for new chairs. So they charge people money for it.
Or, they say: "if you buy this chair before anyone can realize it is a piece of garbage, we reward you a cushion".

This is, to be honest, kinda ****ed up.

Modifié par KDD-0063, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:05 .


#286
Sanunes

Sanunes
  • Members
  • 4 390 messages

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Actually they are correct.

Sorry.

As I said in my very first post on page 5/6 (i think) Javik and From Ashes was (arguably) a story and gameplay critical DLC. Javik is very very noticable by his absence. He fills the same role in the team that Wrex/Grunt did and if he isn't there and your Shep rescued Ashley then the only biotic (other and potentially shepard) that you have is Liara.
He is the party "vanguard" and slots into that space (sorta).

Shale on the other hand doesn't slot into any spaces in the roster because there aren't any spaces

Leliana is the party Archer/Thief.
Alistair is the party damage sponge/defensive warrior.
Wynne is the party healer.
Morrigan is the party wizard.
Zevran is the party stealth backstabber.
Oghren is the party damage dealer/offensive warrior.
Sten can fill the role of offense or defense fairly easily.
And Shale is the same as Sten.

We have 3 other characters that can potentially fill the role that shale potentially can. No one can fill the role that Javik can.

While interesting, fun, and diverting, DAO doesn't feel like its lost anything without her (though it certainly gains with her) whereas with Javik in ME3 that game most definately feels the lack of Javik.

EDIT:
I should say that i am not saying that Shale wasn't a worthwhile piece of DLC.

Non-Essential does not equal useless or pointless.

Shale was very worthwhile.


One of the problems I have with comparing Javik and Shale at least as characters is that it would require a lot more characters to be party members in Mass Effect 3 to not make him feel he is an important character.  In Dragon Age: Origins there are only three classes, but in Mass Effect there has always been five or six (Vanguard isn't an option in ME2/ME3).

As far as importance to story goes I think the problem with the comparisons made is that its going to be a personal choice, for it becomes about personal views and none of them are wrong.

At the end of the day I really wonder if Javik became so important to the story because of the complaints about Zaheed and Kasumi from Mass Effect with all the complaints about how useless it was to talk to them, so they integraded Javik more and now they have the exact opposite complaint.

Modifié par Sanunes, 29 juillet 2013 - 12:36 .


#287
Sanunes

Sanunes
  • Members
  • 4 390 messages

KDD-0063 wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Gamers have taught me that if I buy a chair, I am entitled to the extra fluffy cushion without being charged extra. I mean, the cushion was there on day one~


Not exactly.

The fluffy cushion has always been in the industry. However, if you buy a used chair, you don't get the cushion.
Which is entirely normal, players accept that as a reward for supporting the company.

However, now things has changed.
EA ensures that every used chair is broken.
Suddenly there's no need for said cushion as reward for new chairs. So they charge people money for it.
Or, they say: "if you buy this chair before anyone can realize it is a piece of garbage, we reward you a cushion".

This is, to be honest, kinda ****ed up.


The problem with any of these arguements is people are making assumptions that they cannot prove for the evidence can really go either way.  An example would be with Javik for the amount of complaints about the content he offers and the model and character select screen are on disk. Now an arguement can be made that his content was cut from the game just to make DLC because its on the disk, on the other hand it could be argued that they wanted to have him as part of the game and eventually had to lock the content out because they didn't have enough development time to fully implement him and there is another 600-800 megs of content to be unlocked with From Ashes.

I can't remember who posted it in this thread, but I like the World of Warcraft comparison. There were many areas of the map in the game when it first launched that were locked out to players, but several expansions later they made use of that content.  Now its not Day 1, but at the same time they are making use of content that was developed during the development phase of the primary game and made use of it later and charged $60 for access and I think even if it was the second or third DLC people would still have made the exact same complaints.

#288
ScotGaymer

ScotGaymer
  • Members
  • 1 983 messages
Where do you get your information @Sanunes? lol.

I have played as a Vanguard Shep in ME2 and ME3. My second character (renegade) was a Vanguard; I didn't play him in ME1. Only ME2.

Also you are over simplifying why people disliked Zaeed and Kasumi. Or rather the what they disliked about them.
People disliked Zaeed/Kasumi because of the implementation of them, not because of their missions or characters not being "relevant" or "integrated". People disliked that functioinally Zaeed and Kasumi did not behave the same as the other characters; people disliked they couldn't actively speak with either character in conversation; people disliked that both characters felt "lesser" than the other ME2 characters.
Compare to Javik and people don't complain about the implementation of Javik (because this time implementation was fine) they instead complain about Javik being a fairly critical NPC that does not have a replacement or analogue anywhere else in game being shoved behind a massively expensive pay wall that EVERYONE had to pay for if they wanted to use him. And if they didn't want to use him?
Well then no vanguard-esque party member. And possibly only one useable biotic on your team. And you might not even like that biotic.
And you also miss out on the storyline/plot critical elements that From Ashes brings to the game.

To say the complaints are "the opposite" of each other with the implication that people will just complain regardless is misleading and quite frankly wrong.

I mean this with all due respect. You are obfuscating the arguement in order to discredit "the other side" rather than actualy talking about what is relevant to the arguement. You sound like a republican.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 29 juillet 2013 - 01:44 .


#289
Sanunes

Sanunes
  • Members
  • 4 390 messages

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Where do you get your information @Sanunes? lol.

I have played as a Vanguard Shep in ME2 and ME3. My second character (renegade) was a Vanguard; I didn't play him in ME1. Only ME2.

Also you are over simplifying why people disliked Zaeed and Kasumi. Or rather the what they disliked about them.
People disliked Zaeed/Kasumi because of the implementation of them, not because of their missions or characters not being "relevant" or "integrated". People disliked that functioinally Zaeed and Kasumi did not behave the same as the other characters; people disliked they couldn't actively speak with either character in conversation; people disliked that both characters felt "lesser" than the other ME2 characters.
Compare to Javik and people don't complain about the implementation of Javik (because this time implementation was fine) they instead complain about Javik being a fairly critical NPC that does not have a replacement or analogue anywhere else in game being shoved behind a massively expensive pay wall that EVERYONE had to pay for if they wanted to use him. And if they didn't want to use him?
Well then no vanguard-esque party member. And possibly only one useable biotic on your team. And you might not even like that biotic.
And you also miss out on the storyline/plot critical elements that From Ashes brings to the game.

To say the complaints are "the opposite" of each other with the implication that people will just complain regardless is misleading and quite frankly wrong.

I mean this with all due respect. You are obfuscating the arguement in order to discredit "the other side" rather than actualy talking about what is relevant to the arguement. You sound like a republican.



A lot of what this debate hinges on is personal bias and you saw it with me when I don't consider any NPC's in the game to be a Vanguard for to me a key ability for any class to be considered a Vanguard is Vanguard Charge which no NPC has, but at the same time you are equally right in saying there are classes that fill the role because they have access to some combat abilities and access to some biotic abilties.

Its a lot like how important Javik is, for me he means nothing because I can complete the game without him and I don't consider any information he offers to be important to the story of Mass Effect 3.  On the other hand there are opinions that consider him important just because he is Prothean and therefore an important part of the game.

As far as the DLC characters as a whole, you are correct people didn't like the implentation of them and that was what I was trying to say.  They changed how Javik was implemented and made him more like all the other crew members.  I never said the missions for Kasumi or Zaheed were bad or anything along those lines. What I am wondering is if Javik was as equally shallow as Kasumi and Zaheed feel to me would there have been equal outrage, but with a different focus.

Modifié par Sanunes, 29 juillet 2013 - 02:52 .


#290
Realmzmaster

Realmzmaster
  • Members
  • 5 510 messages
The importance of Javik comes down to personal opinion. Some posters felt that he was an integral part of the story and Bioware cut him out to make dlc. Others on the other hand point to the fact that the game can be played to completion without Javik or his knowledge. Some posters complain that makes Javik dlc bad first day dlc. Shale dlc on the other hand is considered good dlc by some of the same posters.

I see it a different way (my personal opinion) in that it is simply dlc that can be bought or not bought on the first day. Bioware delivered a completely playable game with ME3 which many posters seem to have enjoyed. If the person never bought the From the Ashes dlc would that person feel that he/she did not get a complete game with ME3? I believe the answer would be no from my perspective.
The only reason that Javik dlc From the Ashes is important is because certain posters think it is. That is their perception and they are entitled to it. The opposite of that is equally true. Some posters do not see Javik as being important. Neither is wrong and neither is right.

My perception is equally as valid. As far as Day 1 dlc if you do not buy it then you send a message to the publisher. If the consumer continues to buy Day1 dlc that sends a message also. It seems the message has been sent. The gamers will buy the Day1 dlc no matter how much they whine and groan about it. That is the perception I get. That is the perception that Bioware/EA will get.

If you want to change Bioware/EA's perception on Day 1 dlc then you are going to have to change the perception of all of those who buy Day 1 dlc. 

As long as gamers are buying it then the best business decision Bioware can make is to keep supplying it.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 29 juillet 2013 - 05:08 .


#291
deuce985

deuce985
  • Members
  • 3 567 messages

Realmzmaster wrote...

The importance of Javik comes down to personal opinion. Some posters felt that he was an integral part of the story and Bioware cut him out to make dlc. Others on the other hand point to the fact that the game can be played to completion without Javik or his knowledge. Some posters complain that makes Javik dlc bad first day dlc. Shale dlc on the other hand is considered good dlc by some of the same posters.

I see it a different way (my personal opinion) in that it is simply dlc that can be bought or not bought on the first day. Bioware delivered a completely playable game with ME3 which many posters seem to have enjoyed. If the person never bought the From the Ashes dlc would that person feel that he/she did not get a complete game with ME3? I believe the answer would be no from my perspective.
The only reason that Javik dlc From the Ashes is important is because certain posters think it is. That is their perception and they are entitled to it. The opposite of that is equally true. Some posters do not see Javik as being important. Neither is wrong and neither is right.

My perception is equally as valid. As far as Day 1 dlc if you do not buy it then you send a message to the publisher. If the consumer continues to buy Day1 dlc that sends a message also. It seems the message has been sent. The gamers will buy the Day1 dlc no matter how much they whine and groan about it. That is the perception I get. That is the perception that Bioware/EA will get.

If you want to change Bioware/EA's perception on Day 1 dlc then you are going to have to change the perception of all of those who buy Day 1 dlc. 

As long as gamers are buying it then the best business decision Bioware can make is to keep supplying it.


Exactly. That's why the devs see this forum community as a very vocal minority and likely do not take it too seriously. Because if you went by these forums, you'd think the From Ashes DLC was the devil. The numbers I linked above tell a different story to Bioware/EA. It shows people eat day 1 DLC up and that's millions of extra revenue no sane business is going to ignore.

#292
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

You're switching arguments, here.  If annoying consumers costs BioWare money, then BioWare shouldn't do it.  No one is disputing that.

But arguing that they should avoid irritating consumers as an actual business goal doesn't make any sense unless you can demonstrate that irritating customers routinely costs BioWare money, and you haven't done that.  Moreover, since they're the one's with the money, I expect they've spent more time and effort worrying about this sort of thing.

I'm not saying BioWare is infallible on this point, but they're in the best position to make this determination.  They don't want to lose money, but I'm suggesting that irritating consumers through Day 1 DLC might actually make them money, and given that possibility the downside of irritating consumers becomes insignificant.

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.

But do they not buy the games, or do they still buy the games but just complain about it?  That's a substantive difference that dramatically affects the relevance of the "award".

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.

No, it doesn't.  What people say they like is often not what they really like.

If you ask people whether they're more like to make charitable donations based on messages of hope and optimism, versus fearmongering, they generally choose hope.  But if you examine the performance of direct mail fundraising pieces, it's the scary stuff that makes the most money.  Angering and frightening people is more effective than giving them hope, no matter what they claim (making them sad falls in-between those two).

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."

It is tacky.  It's also effective.

To truly understand why Bioware sticks with this model, I'd need to see more clear financials.

Yes you would.

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.

You're presupposing that the disapproval has business relevance, and it may not.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 29 juillet 2013 - 11:34 .


#293
Angrywolves

Angrywolves
  • Members
  • 4 644 messages
Sounds more like a mass effect thread.
No Day 1 dlc.

#294
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
-snip-


From my interpretation, you are making three assumptions which I feel are incorrect.

One, that Bioware is able to prove that angering fans doesn't result in lost revenue. This is something that is impossible to do, such that even Bioware would be incapable of. They can see every possible financial facet of offering free D1DLC with new copies for ME2 and then charging for D1DLC for ME3, but they do not have a crystal ball that can say how, exactly, revenue would have shifted if one game had a policy over another.

The second thing is that Bioware is able to directly the measures of other, more consumer-friendly avenues of DLC, such as the free D1DLC method. This is highly unlikely. Bioware cannot tell when a player buys a game new if they would have done so with free DLC of without. Even if there were some type of self-report method, self-report is the weakest of all statistical methods. I showed by the math on the previous page that, from a pure revenue standpoint, shunting more sales from used to new, even in small rates and percentages, will more than outpace DLC revenue. I would assert that the main problem for EA's balance sheets is that they cannot prove this (and, hence, why they moved to an all-paid DLC model).

The third and final assumption is that Bioware was making an informed decision when they moved to a Paid D1DLC model. I'd contest strongly that they weren't. As I discussed above, they had no previous experience with a Paid only D1DLC release. Couple that with the fact that they have zero way of determining the long-term effects of such policies. One game has drug their name through the industry mud, but, as you say, it may not drastically affect sales for the next game/DLC... will five more releases in the next ten years do so? Will their name brand suffer so much at that point as to result in a 10% drop? 20%? 50%? We (and they) have no idea - and given how taken aback the teams were with the negative response of pretty much everything ME3 related, I'd say the groups that make hose calls and evaluations are pretty inept at their jobs.

All in all, Bioware went from a model that built consumer loyalty to one that alienated them. As standard business practices go, that is unsustainable. You don't need to see detailed quarterly statements and revenue to know that.

#295
Volus Warlord

Volus Warlord
  • Members
  • 10 697 messages
It seems this thread has become about Day 1 DLC.

#296
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

Volus Warlord wrote...

It seems this thread has become about Day 1 DLC.


Given its title, this is shocking news!

#297
Guest_Guest12345_*

Guest_Guest12345_*
  • Guests
Yeah, remember that this Day 1 DLC started when Bioware and EA were experimenting with DLC and  Project 10 dollar.

I think it is safe to read between the lines and see that, if Bioware and EA have stopped experimenting and settled on a DLC practice, then it is because they have achieved their desired outcome. That outcome is another source of stable and successful DLC and revenue stream.

EA has the money and the metrics, so they know what is best for them. I used to post and believe that Bioware's image problem was hurting them and costing them. But frankly, I don't think it is hurting or costing Bioware nearly as much as I used to believe. My guess is Bioware is going to keep releasing Day 1 DLC companions but they will learn from Javik not to make their DLC companions "too important."

Modifié par scyphozoa, 30 juillet 2013 - 01:52 .


#298
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

From my interpretation, you are making three assumptions which I feel are incorrect.

One, that Bioware is able to prove that angering fans doesn't result in lost revenue.

I don't require that at all.  They only need to lack compelling evidence that angering fans does lead to lost revenue.

You're positioning the lost revenue as the default position that needs to be disproven, but I don't think that's reasonable.  If BioWare has moved down this Day 1 DLC path, they either have some reason to favour it or they don't.  If it's the latter, and they made this big a decision in the absence of meaningful information, then they're not likely to respond to reasoned arguments now.  But if it's the former, then they do have some reason to favour Day 1 DLC, and thus the default position you're advancing is the wrong default position.

You need to convince BioWare that the pather they've chosen is wrong, not that the path you're proposing isn't.

This is something that is impossible to do, such that even Bioware would be incapable of.

I suspect BioWare is familiar with the impossibility of proving universal assertions.

The second thing is that Bioware is able to directly the measures of other, more consumer-friendly avenues of DLC, such as the free D1DLC method. This is highly unlikely. Bioware cannot tell when a player buys a game new if they would have done so with free DLC of without. Even if there were some type of self-report method, self-report is the weakest of all statistical methods. I showed by the math on the previous page that, from a pure revenue standpoint, shunting more sales from used to new, even in small rates and percentages, will more than outpace DLC revenue.

BioWare has clearly found whatever measures that were available to them compelling.  You can't just hand-wave that away.

I would assert that the main problem for EA's balance sheets is that they cannot prove this (and, hence, why they moved to an all-paid DLC model).

Or they think they can have both.  And, prior to the XB1 launch, they had good reason to think that.  XB1 wasn't supposed to allow resale, and they can also prevent resale on PC by tying each game to Origin.  As such, there would have been no need to use DLC to encourage new buys.

The third and final assumption is that Bioware was making an informed decision when they moved to a Paid D1DLC model. I'd contest strongly that they weren't. As I discussed above, they had no previous experience with a Paid only D1DLC release. Couple that with the fact that they have zero way of determining the long-term effects of such policies. One game has drug their name through the industry mud, but, as you say, it may not drastically affect sales for the next game/DLC... will five more releases in the next ten years do so? Will their name brand suffer so much at that point as to result in a 10% drop? 20%? 50%? We (and they) have no idea - and given how taken aback the teams were with the negative response of pretty much everything ME3 related, I'd say the groups that make hose calls and evaluations are pretty inept at their jobs.

Doesn't the same apply to any significant change in policy of this sort?

All in all, Bioware went from a model that built consumer loyalty to one that alienated them.

I don't feel alienated (at least, not by the DLC - in fact, as DLC serves as a de facto move toward modular game design and modular game sales, I'd say it has the potential to be extremely consumer friendly).

As standard business practices go, that is unsustainable. You don't need to see detailed quarterly statements and revenue to know that.

Yes you do.  Intuition isn't knowledge.

#299
LPPrince

LPPrince
  • Members
  • 54 958 messages

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

It seems this thread has become about Day 1 DLC.


Given its title, this is shocking news!


Then...err...SEASON PASSINESS

#300
Fast Jimmy

Fast Jimmy
  • Members
  • 17 939 messages

I don't require that at all. They only need to lack compelling evidence that angering fans does lead to lost revenue.

You're positioning the lost revenue as the default position that needs to be disproven, but I don't think that's reasonable. If BioWare has moved down this Day 1 DLC path, they either have some reason to favour it or they don't. If it's the latter, and they made this big a decision in the absence of meaningful information, then they're not likely to respond to reasoned arguments now. But if it's the former, then they do have some reason to favour Day 1 DLC, and thus the default position you're advancing is the wrong default position.


I'm merely assuming the first position (free D1DLC) as the default one. Given that it is also the one that results in best consumer reaction is merely a bonus. The way some are making this argument out, you'd think Bioware had been doing Paid D1DLC for years and that Free D1DLC is a fluke.

Yet that's the exact opposite of the reality. Free came first, Bioware has three times more experience with that model and Bioware has been chewed apart because of the one release that included the new model. I don't see why we should assume that Paid D1DLC is the "default" other than the fact it was the most recent.

BioWare has clearly found whatever measures that were available to them compelling. You can't just hand-wave that away.


How is that clearly demonstrated? They made one game with Paid D1DLC. That's a statistical fluke, by any method of measurement. Besides, Bioware also found whatever measures they needed to justify an 18 month development period for DA2, yet that was obviously a mistake. You're assuming the people making decisions that (may) have access to the correct data are interpreting it correctly. When, in reality, Bioware has stumbled into blunder after blunder over the past five years.

I think they are either using bad data gathering methods, terrible analytical models or are just flying y the seat of their pants.

Or they think they can have both. And, prior to the XB1 launch, they had good reason to think that. XB1 wasn't supposed to allow resale, and they can also prevent resale on PC by tying each game to Origin. As such, there would have been no need to use DLC to encourage new buys.


This doesn't hold water. ME3 had no intention of being next gen. ME3 is the only game that had Paid D1DLC. DA:I's DLC models have not even been remotely discussed with public. Whether of not they stick with Paid D1DLC, Free D1DLC, Week 3/4 DLC with Season Pass or some other DLC model remains to be seen by the public. So we can't put any assumptions on changes in next gen console policies, since those policies would have only affected DA:I, not ME3.

Doesn't the same apply to any significant change in policy of this sort?


It does. However, when people say "Bioware obviously knows what they're doing" as if they have a crystal ball that can see how fan reaction, increased revenue and total sales play out if they use one method over another, I just like to reintegrate this fact - they don't. But there was no reason to think that Free D1DLC would hurt revenue or relations over time. There is every reason to suspect Paid D-DLC might. And Bioware doesn't know that any better than you or I.

I don't feel alienated (at least, not by the DLC - in fact, as DLC serves as a de facto move toward modular game design and modular game sales, I'd say it has the potential to be extremely consumer friendly).


Well, first off... you, or me (or any particular individual) don't matter. Only the group aggregate does. And the rule of sales are simple - word of mouth sells of kills. You may have twenty people buy your product, but only which is very vocal. If that person is very vocal in a positive manner, you may gain 100 more units sold. If it is very negative, you might not sell another unit at all (even if all 19 of the other silent customers were happy or, at the least, I offended by your product). That's the nature of the consumer market.

Secondly, this isn't an attack on the DLC model. Given that you and I agree that game cost is unnaturally lower than it should be, given market conditions, it would seem a decent compromise to give content to those who want more (and are willing to pay for it).

This is an argument against Paid D1DLC. It could be Paid Day 14 DLC, or Free D1DLC or Expansion in eighth months DLC... all would be fine, as long as it is not asking for more money for extra story content in the very first day of release. That is what Bioware has done with ME3 and the OP (among many others) is asking them not to.