532 réponses à ce sujet

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

The problem is there are two different market forces at play with DLC.  The people that rush through content and will want new content before they put the game away and the people that won't buy Day 1 DLC.  Yes there is negative word of mouth about Day 1 DLC, but there is also negative word of mouth because BioWare didn't cave to what people demanded they wanted, heck there seems to be negative word of mouth because of issues that were present in prior BioWare games, but are now a negative because they are part of EA.

I am not saying you are wrong and there might be people that will buy the DLC on Day 14, but they might lose out on sales from Day 1 as well from people that are already done with the game.

[Volus Warlord]

All I know is if they raise the base price AND have substantial Day One DLC, EA will get the Insult to Injury Award for shameless milking of its fans.

[Sanunes]

Volus Warlord wrote...

All I know is if they raise the base price AND have substantial Day One DLC, EA will get the Insult to Injury Award for shameless milking of its fans.

I thought multiple publishers were looking at raising their prices in the UK? I don't follow gaming sites too closely anymore so I could be wrong.

[Fast Jimmy]

I am not saying you are wrong and there might be people that will buy the DLC on Day 14, but they might lose out on sales from Day 1 as well from people that are already done with the game.

Even if they lose half their D1DLC sales, that's still a pittance of actual revenue. 40% of Day One/pre-orders bought the From Ashes DLC. Great. That's only 40% of a million - 400,000 gamers. $4 million in revenue. That's it.

Is it worth all of the negative press? $4 million is the tiniest drop in the bucket for EA's sales, but it was a contributing factor in over half a million people voting them as the worst company in America - more people than bought the D1DLC.

If, instead, they embraced a method of giving free D1DLC and it resulted in even 1.5% increase in sales for people buying new versus used for ME3, that would have covered the same revenue (1.5% of 4.5 million is 67,500, times $60 a copy is a hair over $4 million).

It's not like Bioware is making money hand-over-fist on this. The margins might higher, due to the fact that they pay nothing to brick-and-mortar retailers for DLC, and they may have to give EA as publisher a smaller cut... but still, they are getting ripped apart for an additional $4-5 million in revenue. That's insane.

Google "Day One DLC" and see how many articles pop up about ME3, most of them phrasing it as a negative much more often than not. See how many responses EA had to give about the Consumerist "Worst Company in America" award, with ME3 and D1DLC being a big target/contributing factor.

How is that, in any way, shape or form, worth $4 million, gross? Not even accounting development, distribution, publisher, marketing costs... it's insane to suggest it is, in any way, making EA or Bioware come out on top.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 juillet 2013 - 06:15 .

[Realmzmaster]

@Fast Jimmy,

The problem with your assumption is you assume that the used buyers will be enticed to buy new. The used buyer can simply wait for the used game plus the cost of dlc to be less than purchasing the game new.
If a person is buying used it is because he/she is buying on price. The other point is that the person can wait for the retail price of the game to drop like DA2 and then purchase the game and dlc for less than the original price. There is no incentive for the used buyer to buy new. So your 1.5% increase in sales may never happen.

You keep pointing out that EA was named the worst company in America. So what? Gamers are still buying their games. As I said before no matter how much the gamers whine or groan if they continue to open their wallets and buy that is sending a message.
I doubt many gamers go into their local game store or order on line thinking I not going to buy any EA games because they were voted the worst company in America. It brings to mind the old quote "There is no such thing as bad publicity". Or as Oscar Wilde put it:
The only thing worst about being talked about is not being talked about. Publicity bad or good keeps you in the attention of the public.

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

@Fast Jimmy,

The problem with your assumption is you assume that the used buyers will be enticed to buy new. The used buyer can simply wait for the used game plus the cost of dlc to be less than purchasing the game new.
If a person is buying used it is because he/she is buying on price. The other point is that the person can wait for the retail price of the game to drop like DA2 and then purchase the game and dlc for less than the original price. There is no incentive for the used buyer to buy new. So your 1.5% increase in sales may never happen.

You keep pointing out that EA was named the worst company in America. So what? Gamers are still buying their games. As I said before no matter how much the gamers whine or groan if they continue to open their wallets and buy that is sending a message.
I doubt many gamers go into their local game store or order on line thinking I not going to buy any EA games because they were voted the worst company in America. It brings to mind the old quote "There is no such thing as bad publicity". Or as Oscar Wilde put it:
The only thing worst about being talked about is not being talked about. Publicity bad or good keeps you in the attention of the public.

If a player is buying Used because the primary concern is money, why wouldn't offering free products not influence that decision? Also, let's not forget that DA:O was the best selling Bioware game of all time for nearly five years straight - NEW game sales only, not used. 

Was Shale a primary factor on that? I cannot say.

But if by buying new, I can get free DLC that helps me play longer, guess what? More people will play longer. Which means it will take people 50 hours instead of 40 to complete the game. That's ten more game hours where they won't be selling their game back yet. For some, that might be less than a day, but for many, that's a week, maybe two, maybe more. 

If there are less games being sold back, retailers have less to sell, which means they can get away with charging more for a Used game. If the Used game costs only five or ten dollars less than the new game, but the new game comes with a free piece of DLC that's worth around $5 to $10, why would they not pick up the New copy?

It quickly becomes a self-fulfilling strategy. Coupled with a smart marketing campaign that plays to this fact (DA:O did not have one, and ME2 and DA2's really focused more on the pre-orders rather than on the new copies), it would not be difficult at all to imagine a mere 1.5% uptake on New sales versus Used.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 juillet 2013 - 06:14 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Also, let's not forget there's more than one model.

Bioware could engage in a Season Pass model, where they could offer these passes as an in engage to buy Collector's Editions/etc. instead of D1DLC. They could then release the first bit of DLC under the Season Pass just a few weeks after release.

Anyone who bought the Pass will hold onto their copies (helping encourage less Used game sales due to supply/demand keeping the Used price high). Then, as Bioware releases the third or fourth DLC, players can evaluate whether the entire DLC suite is worth it and can buy a Pass along with all DLC for cheaper than each individual episode would cost. This would increase DLC penetration rates (good for story purposes) while also increasing revenue, especially bulk revenue where people might be buying a Pass and three, four or more pieces of DLC all at once.

There are many options on the table that don't involve a Paid D1DLC. And nearly all of them SA e much more face able offering comparable, or even better, revenue rates.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

How is that clearly demonstrated? They made one game with Paid D1DLC. That's a statistical fluke, by any method of measurement.

There exists other market data beyond merely their own.

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.

As I said, either they're making reasoned decisions based on information, where they undoubtedly have more information than you, or they're making knee-jerk decisions based on gut feelings of the marketing department (of something else suitably worthless), in which case there's no point making reasoned arguments at them, as they don't rely on reasoning.

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

They might be.  Does that have any relevance for the consumers?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Jimmy - what if they just change the messaging around Paid Day 1 DLC? Instead of selling the game, and then an extra bit for more money, why not sell the package of both together as the game, at a higher price, but with a discounted introductory version that lacks that piece?

It would be the same things for sale, but now the more expensive one would be sold as the full game.

Look, I want to be able to buy the parts of the game I want and not buy the parts of the game I don't. And I want to be able to do that all at once without waiting for 14 days. Is there any way to make that possible without doing what you insist is alienating consumers?

[Fast Jimmy]

Filament wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

THis seems like the most relevant point. I don't know why there is this inclination to be bioware's personal business advisors. If you don't like day 1 DLC as a personal policy, just say that?

I don't know why there is an inclination to defend Bioware against us random personal business advisors? I'm currently sitting in an airport and have nothing else better to do at the moment.

That being said, saying that Bioware has access to internal information is correct. However, some very basic math shows that D1DLC isn't what's keeping the lights on at Bioware - it's barely enough to cover the salaries of the top business minds over the 2-3 years of development. If I was engaging in policies that resulted in lots of public, PR complaints that didnt even result in enough revenue to cover my bosses' paycheck, I'd either be in trouble or want someone to point that out to me.

That being said, consider I do charge a non-trivial amount for my business advice to companies on a regular basis, I'd consider it a charitable donation. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 juillet 2013 - 06:54 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

As for the topic, I've already made my position clear--I think that Day 1 DLC should come with a new copy of the game (even made a thread about it).

And I disagree.  Players who don't want that content shouldn't have to pay for that content.  And BioWare should be allowed to charge more for more content.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It quickly becomes a self-fulfilling strategy. Coupled with a smart marketing campaign that plays to this fact (DA:O did not have one, and ME2 and DA2's really focused more on the pre-orders rather than on the new copies), it would not be difficult at all to imagine a mere 1.5% uptake on New sales versus Used.

Huh? What did pre-orders get that new copies did not? I got the game new at the end of 2010 for 20 bucks, and it came with the Cerberus Network stuff, those five or so DLC (Zaeed, Firewalker ones, Normandy Crash Site).

Ah, I was under the incorrect impression then.

ME2 and DA:O followed the same model, then. DA2 had Sebastian free with (I believe) Signature editions, which were the same price as the base game, just that it was only available to those who pre-ordered. So, basically, if you pre-ordered the game, you got the DLC free (from my understanding). Not quite as pure as the "frees with all new copies" method, but still free to the fans who were aware of the offer.

Going for a different type of revenue stream (going for more pre-orders), so it wouldn't have the ability to combat Used sales nearly as well, but still... much less likely to earn consumer scorn. 

[Thomas Andresen]

Plaintiff wrote...

If the concept of DLC did not exist, then neither would the content that is sold as DLC.

This really is the heart of the matter.

The content might exist in an unfinished, terribad state, but would never be completed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You aren't paying for it. It isn't factored into the price of the game. The game would be the same price without that content. The content is essentially free, you merely need to buy new.

There's no such thing as free content.  Each dollar the developer's earn repays the investment in the production of the game's content.  If they give us more content for the same money, then they're getting less return on the investment.

I don't want them to get less return.  I want them to be rewarded for giving me content I like, not punished.

And the argument about "more money for more content" invites (doesn't beg!) the question of where the standard is. If you're going to start charging based on how much content there is, you'll have to choose how much each bit, each byte, of content is worth. Which seems like it will descend into nonsense quickly.

Why does it matter where the standard is?  Isn't that just a question of marketing?  We define the standard based on what we can sell, and then charge fees based on that standard.

But actually changing the game's content to avoid drawing baseless ire is a terrible idea.

[Sejborg]

I must say I rather like the approach CD project red is taking to the whole DLC. Bioware on the other hand is just so hard to like.

[Realmzmaster]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And I disagree.  Players who don't want that content shouldn't have to pay for that content.  And BioWare should be allowed to charge more for more content.

You aren't paying for it. It isn't factored into the price of the game. The game would be the same price without that content. The content is essentially free, you merely need to buy new.


And the argument about "more money for more content" invites (doesn't beg!) the question of where the standard is. If you're going to start charging based on how much content there is, you'll have to choose how much each bit, each byte, of content is worth. Which seems like it will descend into nonsense quickly.

There's value there but it isn't a fully applicable model, I don't feel.

The publisher and developer are paying for it even if it is free to the consumer. It costs resources to develop a product even if the intent is to give away. The point is that the developer is eating the cost when it comes to free dlc. The developer is making less on the investment. That means less profit unless the developer is able to sell more copies. There is no such thing as free. Someone is paying for it.

When a developer gives away free dlc the developer is hoping to generate more sales or generate goodwill and good word of mouth. The developer is taking a gamble. If the gamble does not generate enough sales then the free dlc becomes a losing proposition. Free dlc means less profit for the developer because of the sunk cost in developing the dlc unless it generates extra sales that exceed the development cost.

CDProjekt is eating the cost of the free dlc. While it may be free to the consumer it is not free to CDProjekt. At the moment CDProjekt is willing to make less profit whether CDProjekt will be able to sustain that model has yet to be seen. Yes , the consumer can say I like the way CDProjekt is handling the dlc because the consumer is getting it at no cost.
The question becomes how long can CDProjekt keep making free dlc with no income coming in from it. The question is that free dlc generating any new sales or are CDProjekt just satisfying the existing base without attracting new blood. While it works in the short run it may come back to bite them.

[Realmzmaster]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The publisher and developer are paying for it even if it is free to the consumer. It costs resources to develop a product even if the intent is to give away. The point is that the developer is eating the cost when it comes to free dlc. The developer is making less on the investment. That means less profit unless the developer is able to sell more copies. There is no such thing as free. Someone is paying for it.

When a developer gives away free dlc the developer is hoping to generate more sales or generate goodwill and good word of mouth. The developer is taking a gamble. If the gamble does not generate enough sales then the free dlc becomes a losing proposition. Free dlc means less profit for the developer because of the sunk cost in developing the dlc unless it generates extra sales that exceed the development cost.

CDProjekt is eating the cost of the free dlc. While it may be free to the consumer it is not free to CDProjekt. At the moment CDProjekt is willing to make less profit whether CDProjekt will be able to sustain that model has yet to be seen. Yes , the consumer can say I like the way CDProjekt is handling the dlc because the consumer is getting it at no cost.
The question becomes how long can CDProjekt keep making free dlc with no income coming in from it. The question is that free dlc generating any new sales or are CDProjekt just satisfying the existing base without attracting new blood. While it works in the short run it may come back to bite them.

How is any of that not true of normal DLC? A normal DLC that no one buys loses just as much money. The developer takes just as much of a gamble with normal DLC.

The model I'm suggesting is NOT the one CDPR is doing. I don't see any reason for that. It has very little benefit outside of good word-of-mouth, which will only go so far. The model I'm supporting, I'll say again, is that Day 1 DLC be like ME2--you get it free with a new copy of the game.


The "problem" with the model that I support, and that Jimmy gave an example of a page or two back (where people buy the game new because of the DLC), is that there's no real way to tell who is buying it new because of the DLC as opposed to used. That would lead to bias against that model (it doesn't seem successful, because it's very difficult to tell if it IS successful).

What you are saying is the developer has to eat the cost of developing the "free" dlc and take a potential cut in profits. That can only be done if the publisher/developer sees an increase in sales otherwise it is a losing proposition. Most dlc is unfinished content that the developer would like to finish, but that can only happen if the publisher can make money from the deal.

Bioware has to go to EA and ask for money to complete the unfinished content. It will be a very hard sell if Bioware says let give it away for free with each new copy. Why would the publisher allocate more money to complete the dlc without a chance of a sufficient return on that investment?

That sufficient return must come in the form of increased sales. That is a gamble. The publisher is already gambling that the game will sell a certain number of copies to cover the development costs of the game plus make a profit. Now add in the condition that the game must sell even more copies to cover the development cost of the dlc which is free to the consumer.

.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

If D1DLC is truly as how developers state, that it mostly content that will lie on the cutting room floor and never see the light of day, then it is already lost/sunk cost development. If the game went live today without it, they wouldn't see a dime.

If, instead, they polish if up, make it presentable and sell it at a premium price ($10 for around 5 hours of content is DEFINITELY premium in the realm of video games), that earns the ire of consumers and very little overall revenue.

The happy medium is polishing the otherwise-forfeited content and using it in a way that results in more revenue with the smallest chance possible to generate negative feedback.

This could be releasing the same DLC weeks after release - something we've seen other developers do (Borderlands 2 had a Day 14 DLC that obviously was worked on prior to release, but received no significant negative backlash), or by giving the DLC as part of a package for New copies, earning significantly more revenue on a per-unit penetration basis.

Further incorporating a Season Pass model - which other developers don't do nearly as well, example being Irrational Games, which just revealed that after four months of work, their first big DLC release will be a horde mode DLC - would promote the DLC module concept, increas consumer financial attachment to the title and reward fans who get the pass and then take advantage of a of the DLC.

Fernando Melo - give me a PM. I've got some ways you can double your DLC revenue without painting a big "Bioware is run by the EA crony suits" target on your back.

[Fast Jimmy]

Filament wrote...

No Melo, PM me instead so I can tell you what a great business decision continuing with save imports are.

Do you really want to hurt me?

Do you really want to make me cry?