532 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

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.

The question is will it generate the same number of sales as the first day dlc? Also how do you capture the gamers like Maria Caliban who have finished the game in the first week and moved on to other games? What is the drawing point for them in day14dlc? WWWhereas they may be more inclined to buy first day dlc.

The content may lie on the cutting room floor and could stay right there as a sunk cost, but what is the incentive to polish it up and give it away free if it does not regain the sunk cost plus the cost of polishing it up. As stated before sales have to increase based on the inclusion of the dlc. If the sales do not increase or increase only slightly then the gamble is a bust.

Another assumption is that some of the people who normally buy used will be enticed to buy new because of the inclusion of free dlc. The question is that a valid assumption since it is almost impossible to prove unless you do a survey asking the purchasers why they purchased?

Why should Bioware change from Daydlc if gamers are willing to buy it on day 1 no matter how much they whine or groan?

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 31 juillet 2013 - 04:47 .

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Do you really want to hurt me?

Do you really want to make me cry?

Boy, George, you come and go.  

You come and go.

[Fast Jimmy]

The question is will it generate the same number of sales as the first day dlc? Also how do you capture the gamers like Maria Caliban who have finished the game in the first week and moved on to other games? What is the drawing point for them in day14dlc? WWWhereas they may be more inclined to buy first day dlc.

A Season Pass would make anyone who purchases said pass (or gets it free with a Collector's Edition, or a pre-order, what have you) and then sells their copy after beating the game in the first week as extremely foolish. They either paid money for nothing (free revenue for Bioware) or pre-ordered/bought a fancy version (again, more free money for Bioware). Either way, it reduces the number of Used copies available and, if free D1DLC is given, it incentivizes New game purchases. Best all-round practice for Bioware, who has shown they can consistently put out story DLC on a solid time table.

Another assumption is that some of the people who normally buy used will be enticed to buy new because of the inclusion of free dlc. The question is that a valid assumption since it is almost impossible to prove unless you do a survey asking the purchasers why they purchased?

DA:O far exceeded all expectations of sales. As did ME2. Both used a similar model of free D1DLC characters. While obviously the games are tied to their popularity, critical reception and fan approval, who is to say what amounts are attributed to the free D1DLC?

Also, to suggest that EA doesn't have numbers to draw from in terms of what percentage of games usually have Used game sales on average for different genres and tiers of units sold is underplaying the tight relationship EA has with the retail stores. They should be able to predict ratios of Used game sales to New. Did their games that used this policy have higher or lower rates? Could there be other explanations for these rates? If not, does that prove IT... errr, Free D1DLC?

Why should Bioware change from Daydlc if gamers are willing to buy it on day 1 no matter how much they whine or groan?

Because no consumer that complains and groans about a product will continue to buy it in the ultimate long run. Sure, people may have complained about DA2 and bought ME3. People may have complained about ME3 and still buy DA:I. But there comes a time in the market where consumer relations become a commodity themselves and you lose consumers to your competitors.

This is happening right now with CDProjekt, according to many. Sure, Bioware says "it's not a competition and everyone should buy both games..." but that's not the way economics works most times. Scarcity of resources for entertainment products means many people will only buy one of these products in 2014. Given CDProjekt's great marketing for TW3, their timetable of being out first and their extraordinary reputation with their fans for their consumer-friendly practices, I can easily see an argument for CDProjekt being the one many fans side with if they have to choose one game over another.

Companies that ignore consumer feedback and say "they'll buy whatever we shove in front of them" find out all too often that consumers DO out their money where their mouth is... just often not exactly when you expect them to.

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
"it's not a competition and everyone should buy both games..." but that's not the way economics works most times.

Anyone who puts for that argument, that "you shouldn't think of it as either / or, you should just buy both" is deluding themselves into thinking that's a winning argument.

YES, there are fans (here I go with analogies again) who will see both Man of Steel and Thor: The Dark World this year, because they love all super-hero movies and/or have the money to see both.

But there are people who, for a myriad of reasons, like to pick a "side", say with DC or Marvel, and they will take the side of the one that speaks most to their tastes and be "loyal" to that side.

And you have those who, for another myriad of reasons, ration their movie-going.  They might not have a dog in the race for comic book companies or what-not, so they'll pick the one of those two movies based on which appeals most to their tastes.

It is not sane to count on people being willing and/or able to purchase "all possible products of a given type" so there is not "this or that" choice to be made.  Absolutely not sane.

Some can and will buy both.

But many, for many reasons, will only buy one.  And they will decide between Man of Steel or Thor: The Dark World.

If there was only Man of Steel, or only Thor: The Dark World, for superhero movies this year, the existing one would see an increase in ticket sales simply because someone craving a superhero film will take what they can get if they only have one option.

But both existing means there are choices.  And when there are choices, people make choices.  Sometimes that is both, yes.  Sometimes that is neither, too.  But a lot of the time it is one and not both, and that leads to comparing to make a decision on which one to choose.

...

I don't understand how people can stand behind a "just buy both, it's not a competition" argument.

[Realmzmaster]

MerinTB wrote...

I don't understand how people can stand behind a "just buy both, it's not a competition" argument.

I agree with you. People buy games for a variety of different reasons. It is not just a simple case of economics either. It boils down to as you state taste. Just from the posters on this forum there are some who will not touch the Witcher 3 no matter how fanastic of a game it may be because they do not wish to play as the male protagonist. Others will not play it because it is not a party based game. Others because they do not like the combat. There are reasons why some will not buy DA:I. A lot more factors go in than just can I afford it. I can afford both games but have zero interest in The Witcher 3.

I played Witcher 1 and Witcher 2 is sitting on my self . Where it will stay. (It was a gift from my son-in-law who picked it up for free at gamestop. The store was sent a PC copy when the area is almost entirely ps3 and xbox). DA:I on the other hand I will pre-order because I liked DAO and DA2. I will also buy the dlc if I find it interesting. I did not buy any of the DAO dlc because I did not find it compelling except for the Stone Prisoner which came with my collector's edition. I did not buy the Collector's edition for the dlc. I bought for the case which I like along with the game.

I did not get any of dlc until the ultimate edition came out and then when the price went down. I now know why I found none of the dlc compelling when they came out. I had more fun with the DA2 dlc.

As you stated some will buy both. Some will pick between the two and other will buy neither. Cost may be a factor for some, but the average gamer buys quite a few games in a year so cost alone is not the deciding factor.

One assumption I find interesting is that you try to entice gamers who buy used to buy new by bundling  the dlc free with any new copy. But if I am buying used I am buying based on price. Would it not be more prudent for me to wait for the price of the used game to drop and buy the dlc at a price point below the price of a new game.

For example the price of the used game is $29.99 and price of the dlc is $10.00 for a total of $39.99. The price of the new game is $59.99. I save $20.00 of the new price. Unless Bioware decides it will not sale the dlc separate from the new game then you may have an incentive to buy new. But I do not see that generating any goodwill.

The Season pass is an interesting concept as long as I like the dlc. What happens if I get the first dlc and it is rubbish. I doubt I will buy or want anymore so I am out the cost of Season Pass. Whereas if I purchase dlc separately and I do not like the first dlc I will not be incline to purchase more. I am not out the cost of the season pass only that dlc unless the season pass cost the same as the one dlc. 

What is included in the Season Pass is dependent on what the publisher/developer wishes to include or not include. So I could still end up paying for the dlc I actually want.

[Realmzmaster]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

There's a lot to respond to here. For the first couple sentences: yes, I'm saying that, just like you're saying that a developer has to eat  the cost of developing paid DLC if it doesn't sell.

As for the bolded, that may be true for some companies, but I very, VERY strongly doubt that even half of the Bioware DLC for any game of theirs is simply "unfinished content." Are you suggesting that Witch Hunt, that Awakening (nevermind this I guess--it's an expansion, not DLC), that Golems, that ANY of these were merely "unfinished content?" I'm very dubious of that claim.

But the funny thing is--if they ARE unfinished content, as Jimmy said, then they already ate the cost of making the content. The only cost to them will be polishing it up for release.

And as I've pointed out--they will be making money. By increased sales of the new game as opposed to used.

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.

.

How is it any less of a gamble than gambling on the DLC alone?

You are making the assumption that the free dlc will entice them to buy new. That will only happen if Bioware does not sale the dlc separately. If Bioware does sale the dlc separately I can buy the game used plus the dlc at a price cheaper than buying new. Where is the incentive  to buy new?

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Also, I'd like to add, as I've stated before, giving the D1DLC away for free results in the average play time of the game to increase up an additional 5-10 hours. The longer you keep gamers playing, the longer they aren't selling their games back to GameStop, which means the Used game price will remain very high (possibly the same as the New one, or close enough).

The problem with past campaigns is that gamers didn't even know that this was the case unless they looked at the back of the box and saw the blurb about the DLC (if it even was mentioned there). Unless the consumer is already following the development for your game (in which case they are already highly disposed to buying a New copy close to release anyway), then this information was tucked away and more of a perk that a gamer finds out after they made the purchase.

I remember a few years back, I went to see a movie the weekend after opening and found that, after purchasing my ticket, the theater was giving away a promotional item intent on enticing sales. Since I (and many people in line) had no idea about the promotion, it was an added bonus, but it was poorly marketed because it had zero effect on our ticket purchasing. And, for the life of me, I cannot remember what the movie was, who produced it or what the promotional item was... so it built up no brand loyalty or consumer goodwill.

That's what I feel like the Free D1DLC model was like - giving items away free to those who had already made up their mind anyway. This was most likely due to the fact that the DLC was an accidental fluke, where they wound up having loads of extra development time to finish Shale up, so were just giving it away to the fans to be nice, rather than a true and proper experience t of the possibilities of the Project 10 Dollar model. The marketing around ME2's D1C and the Cereberus Network was better, but the overall Cerebeus Network concept was a little vague and did not truly showcase the free value of the DLC, but made it sound like a VIP club for uber-fans rather than a source of free content.



Another aspect to consider is Skyrim. Skyrim was the same price for a Used copy (if you could even find one) as a New one for MONTHS. It honestly made no sense to buy it at a discount for the longest time simply because it was saving you mere dollars off a New copy.

Bioware has said in he past that X% of people never finish a game and that the average playthrough is less than 20 hours, so why make content that is not seen by a majority of players, but I think that answers itself right there. How many people played 40, 50, 60 or more your long campaigns in Skyrim and didn't even START the main quest? The game has so much content and can be such a time stealer that gamers will be playing for a long time. Couple that with a modkit, which greatly extends play life and you've got a product that practically fights Used copy sales by default.

Bioware has no means of making a toolkit currently. Their cinematic deposit philosophy makes a 100 your game nearly impossible. So, barring that, they should be looking at extending out quality content that will suck players in as much as possible. If you have a mind-blowing 40 hour campaign, but zero replayability (Bioware has said they concerned first and foremost with the "first playthrough" experience of gamers), then you've only got them for those 40 hours. They may rant and rave about the game, but many will just drop their copies off at GameStop when they are done.

A Free D1DLC model gives some more content to help stave off this mass unload into the Used game market. Sure, not by much. But every little bit helps, especial if the DLC can result in drastically different outcomes and endings (along with the main game) that will have a player restarting all over again as soon as they complete their first playthrough - I know that is what kept me hooked on DA:O for so long.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I bought ME2, new, from Gamestop for twenty bucks, around 10 months after it came out. It was only twenty bucks, but it's twenty bucks that went into Bioware's pocket, rather than them getting ten bucks from the DLC alone.

(...)

You're assuming that buying used AND buying the DLC will be cheaper than buying a new copy when the price drops. Case in point, see directly above.

They want day one sales desperately, and week one sales almost as bad.  Past that there are rapidly decreasing returns for them on game purchases.

The game industry (particularly the "AAA" titles) has become a lot like the movie industry (I'd argue unfortunately) and I don't just mean in trying to tell stories cinematically.  Opening day / opening weekend has become almost all or nothing.  It's not nearly as bad as with the movie industry YET, I don't see it at least, but it is very similar.

For one, the reviews and sales figures are going to be at their height just before and just after release.  That's make or break time for if a game is successful.

Yes, you buying the ME2 game later for $20 new goes right to EA (and some to BioWare), and little to the store that carried the title for you (evil retail store, wanting to make money and not just get a net zero result for providing a service for you) but, as far as if the devs who work on ME2 and the franchise as a whole are concerned, that money is nearly meaningless.  Yes, the company earned some profit, a later return on investment, and that keeps the company expenses paid, etc., all that good stuff revenue does for a company...

...but that game / series barely notices any positives from later sales.  Do you think Steam sales, two or five or fifteen years after a game was released, help the developers or the game series?  Do you think DLC sales on a game even a year after a game is released will really incentivise the publisher, or even the devs of said game series, to keep making more of that series?  In a "here's some revenue for whatever you are currently working on, if that happens to be the series that old game / old DLC was, great!" way, sure.  But not in a "we'll make more of it BECAUSE of that late sale!"

All the Browncoats in the world pushing Firefly to friends, relatives, and strangers couldn't bring the show back on the air.  And for all their passion, going to to see the movie repeatedly and bringing as many friends as they could, the theatrical release of the film their evangelizing helped get made did not turn a profit for Universal.  Yes, DVD sales for the series and for the movie were high... but those sales are too late for the ongoing nature of the show.

Games, and game creators, are made or broken by initial sales.

You might be wise to wait for your pocket book for sales - I'm not saying you shouldn't.  I do all the time.

But don't delude yourself into thinking that, by buying the game "new" when it's on over half-off sale about a year or more after the game was released that you are "helping" the game creators anymore than when you buy it used at release time.

Here's the abstraction that publishers and some developers don't like to think about for used games / game rentals...

1 - Knowing that they can sell their game back for a return on their investment encourages gamers to try more titles on day one.
2 - Someone buying a used copy of a game around release time can love it and tell others about the game, which often leads to new sales (of which some may be new and not used copies)
3 - Rental chains make up for quite a few PURCHASES of games at release.  Those purchases are, unless I am grossly mistaken, counted as new sales.
4 - People who rent games (especially ones with longer than 8 hours of play, paritcularly longer games, games with multiplayer, or games with high levels of replayability for any other reasons) are trying titles they might not have tried otherwise, and can end up buying them.  At which point the publisher / developer has made extra money on that one person - the rental store's purchase of the game, and that renter's purchase of a copy (if they buy new, which they might.)

---

Long story short, just because more of your purchase goes to the "creators" of a game if you buy new late doesn't mean it helps them as much as you buying a used copy closer to the game's release.

Day One DLC is a poor way of "fighting" used game sales, largely because game creators SHOULDN'T be fighting used game sales but encouraging them.  For a game to be used, someone had to buy it first.  That first sale suddenly spread to more gamers, who may then purchase new the next game from said creators.  In point of fact, DLC is one more reason many more frugal (and, yes, wisely so) consumers will wait until some "GOTY" package that includes ALL DLC for half the price of the game new... and then they can STILL buy that copy used.

[Plaintiff]

MerinTB wrote...
For a game to be used, someone had to buy it first.  That first sale suddenly spread to more gamers, who may then purchase new the next game from said creators.  In point of fact, DLC is one more reason many more frugal (and, yes, wisely so) consumers will wait until some "GOTY" package that includes ALL DLC for half the price of the game new... and then they can STILL buy that copy used.

Except used games sales don't have that effect at all, because people who are in the habit of buying used games are going to keep doing it. Developers will never see a cent from them except in digital purchases, which is precisely why the industry is shifting, slowly but surely, to an all-digital distribution format.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 31 juillet 2013 - 12:41 .

[MerinTB]

Plaintiff wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
For a game to be used, someone had to buy it first.  That first sale suddenly spread to more gamers, who may then purchase new the next game from said creators.  In point of fact, DLC is one more reason many more frugal (and, yes, wisely so) consumers will wait until some "GOTY" package that includes ALL DLC for half the price of the game new... and then they can STILL buy that copy used.

Except used games sales don't have that effect at all, because people who are in the habit of buying used games are going to keep doing it. Developers will never see a cent from them except in digital purchases, which is precisely why the industry is shifting, slowly but surely, to an all-digital distribution format.

Yes.  Some who buy used will always buy used.

And people who copy games illegally will still do so, not paying a dime to anyone for said copy, regardless of anything that the game companies try to do to stop piracy.

Day One DLC isn't going to stop that.  Just as Day One DLC isn't stopping used game sales at all.

You cannot force people to give you more money by gimmicks.  The negativity you generate by the gimmicks being called out causes as many people to buy used (or pirate) as they generate extra revenue.

People who cannot afford to buy many games new will not be able to buy more games new just because you somehow remove the ability for them to buy them used.  That's just reality as well.

But for it NEVER happening, as in you saying it has NO EFFECT AT ALL, is simply untrue.

I have rented games, loved them, then bought them.  Hell, in the past, I have downloaded games via file-sharing, loved them, then bought them.  Freedom Force, a game I am quite the evangelical for to this day, was one I file-shared, played for one day, went down to my local EB Games that same day and bought a new copy and the strategy guide for just ONE example.

It DOES happen.  I can speak anecdotally for myself and others.  And I can point to others saying so as well -

CEO of Ubisoft -
"Lots of people are buying a game, reselling it, and buying another one.
It has a very positive impact on the industry," Guillemot said.
"Because it [gives] the customer the possibility to buy many games. It
gives them a chance to play more games. I think it has been good for the
industry; what we have to make sure is that there's not too much money
lost in between so there's good efficiency there." - http://www.gamespot....dustry-6409608?

Gamestop's positive effect on the sales of new games -
"We are giving [consumers] 17 percent toward the purchase of
[publishers'] games today," says Bartel. "We have that form of unfunded
discount that we give to the publishers." 
Additionally, according to GameStop, there was $1.2 billion in credit
for 2011, of which 70 percent went to new game sales -- and the
retailer sells 25 to 30 percent of the new games in U.S., the most of
any retailer." - http://gamasutra.com...helped_the_.php

Erik Kain at Forbes -
"In the meantime, I do think used games are an important piece of the
equation. Gamers save money purchasing used games and some of those
savings go toward new purchases. Used games can help gamers get into
franchises they may have missed, leading to a new interest in a series.
Lots of other benefits exist in the current market and distribution model that can’t be replaced overnight." - http://www.forbes.co...matter-for-now/

Shawn Struck at Yahoo -
""Industry analyst Micheal Pachter of Wedbush Morgan Securities says that
the relationship between used video game sales and new game sales isn't
parasitic, but mutually dependent, asserting that when customers get
credit for used games, consumers buy more games, "Sometimes they buy new
games. If, instead, they buy used games, so what?" he said in article
for the Holywood Reporter. He continued, "In creating more demand for
used games, it keeps the price of used games up, which means there is
less cannibalization of new game sales."
(...)
Wilm Stocks, the Executive Vice President at Atari acknowledged in a Hollywood
Reporter interview that video game stores are balancing on very thin
profit margins. saying "[I]f you talk to anybody in the used [video game
sales] business, they'll tell you that they don't make enough margin on
sales of new releases and that, in the large, expensive environments in
which these guys operate -- in the mall-based stores -- that a three-
or six-month delay becomes a problem for them." Customers playing a game
and trading it it towards the purchase of a new game generate
additional revenue for the store and video game publishers. As Patcher
said, even customers who just buy used games end up reducing and
internalizing market churn." - http://voices.yahoo....ry-6691064.html

I could go on.  Point being is you have SOME people whining on one side about not getting direct cuts of sales (despite the law of First Sale saying that, uh-uh, sorry, that's how the market economy works!) and pretty much everyone else, some game developers, some game publishers, economists, journalists, consumers, saying that used games are a beneficial part of the game industry.

Modifié par MerinTB, 31 juillet 2013 - 01:09 .

[Realmzmaster]

MerinTB brings a thought to mind. If you buy a game used within the first two weeks of release that means that someone bought it new and finished it or tired of it. So if a developers waits until Day14 to release dlc any sales of dlc to that new buyer is lost. Day 1 dlc on the other hand catches this new buyer and that buyer may hold on to the game longer before it hits the used market. If there are less copies on the used market that may mean some of those who would have bought used may now buy new to get their hands on the game or they will have to wait longer for the game. If the developers can keep that new buyer playing the day 1 dlc until the next dlc comes out they retain the new buyer longer and make more potential money off of him/her.

[Realmzmaster]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

One assumption I find interesting is that you try to entice gamers who buy used to buy new by bundling  the dlc free with any new copy. But if I am buying used I am buying based on price. Would it not be more prudent for me to wait for the price of the used game to drop and buy the dlc at a price point below the price of a new game.

For example the price of the used game is $29.99 and price of the dlc is $10.00 for a total of $39.99. The price of the new game is $59.99. I save $20.00 of the new price. Unless Bioware decides it will not sale the dlc separate from the new game then you may have an incentive to buy new. But I do not see that generating any goodwill.

I bought ME2, new, from Gamestop for twenty bucks, around 10 months after it came out. It was only twenty bucks, but it's twenty bucks that went into Bioware's pocket, rather than them getting ten bucks from the DLC alone.

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are making the assumption that the free dlc will entice them to buy new. That will only happen if Bioware does not sale the dlc separately. If Bioware does sale the dlc separately I can buy the game used plus the dlc at a price cheaper than buying new. Where is the incentive  to buy new?

You're assuming that buying used AND buying the DLC will be cheaper than buying a new copy when the price drops. Case in point, see directly above.

No it is not $20.000 that went into Bioware's pocket espeically if you bought it at Gamestop that is not how retail and distribution works. There are no EA trucks running around distributing products to retailers. There are wholesalers , distributors and retail stores all in this mix. EA will only get a percentage of that sale or any sale. That is why publishers like EA and others want to get pre-orders and retail sales as close to MSRP as possible to get the most potential profit. 
Gamers who wait to buy the base game are less likely to buy the dlc. Gamers who pre order or buy first day or more likely to buy dlc because they have a greater interest in the series. Day1dlc makes sense to capture those sales.
 

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:54 .

[cjones91]

Realmzmaster wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

One assumption I find interesting is that you try to entice gamers who buy used to buy new by bundling  the dlc free with any new copy. But if I am buying used I am buying based on price. Would it not be more prudent for me to wait for the price of the used game to drop and buy the dlc at a price point below the price of a new game.

For example the price of the used game is $29.99 and price of the dlc is $10.00 for a total of $39.99. The price of the new game is $59.99. I save $20.00 of the new price. Unless Bioware decides it will not sale the dlc separate from the new game then you may have an incentive to buy new. But I do not see that generating any goodwill.

I bought ME2, new, from Gamestop for twenty bucks, around 10 months after it came out. It was only twenty bucks, but it's twenty bucks that went into Bioware's pocket, rather than them getting ten bucks from the DLC alone.

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are making the assumption that the free dlc will entice them to buy new. That will only happen if Bioware does not sale the dlc separately. If Bioware does sale the dlc separately I can buy the game used plus the dlc at a price cheaper than buying new. Where is the incentive  to buy new?

You're assuming that buying used AND buying the DLC will be cheaper than buying a new copy when the price drops. Case in point, see directly above.

No it is not $20.000 that went into Bioware's pocket espeically if you bought it at Gamestop that is not how retail and distribution works. There are no EA trucks running around distributing products to retailers. There are wholesalers , distributors and retail stores all in this mix. EA will only get a percentage of that sale or any sale. That is why publishers like EA and others want to get pre-orders and retail sales as close to MSRP as possible to get the most potential profit. 
Gamers who wait to buy the base game are less likely to buy the dlc. Gamers who pre order or buy first day or more likely to buy dlc because they have a greater interest in the series. Day1dlc makes sense to capture those sales.
 

That's not true at all.There are plenty of games people buy that are several years old and if the game is good will buy any Dlc to get more enjoyment out of the game.If a game is good then people will buy Dlc for it,if it's not then people will turn the game in.

The problem with game developers complaining about used games is something Nintendo talked about sometime ago.If you make a good game then people will hold onto it but if you make trash instead then they will try to recoup some of the money spent by selling their cop.Perhaps instead of complaining about used games the game industry should stop making crap.

[LinksOcarina]

Considering they never did that, I think you have nothing to worry about OP. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 31 juillet 2013 - 06:06 .

[Fast Jimmy]

MerinTB brings a thought to mind. If you buy a game used within the first two weeks of release that means that someone bought it new and finished it or tired of it. So if a developers waits until Day14 to release dlc any sales of dlc to that new buyer is lost. Day 1 dlc on the other hand catches this new buyer and that buyer may hold on to the game longer before it hits the used market. If there are less copies on the used market that may mean some of those who would have bought used may now buy new to get their hands on the game or they will have to wait longer for the game. If the developers can keep that new buyer playing the day 1 dlc until the next dlc comes out they retain the new buyer longer and make more potential money off of him/her.

I don't think this is entirely true (after all, these play-and-burn players you talk about, while not rare, are hardly indicative of the average gamer's time frame, let alone the majority), but let's assume it is.

Why wouldn't you rather have MORE players engaged with the D1DLC by making it free rather than limiting it to just those players who want to pay extra? All for, again, a mere $4 to $5 million dollars (400,000 units of DLC sold in the first week X $10 = $4,000,000) In a game with a possible revenue stream of over $200 million ($60 X 4.5 million ME3 sold within the first ten weeks = $270,000,000, but I'll be conservative for returns/discounts/what have you). That is really stupid - getting flogged publicly for a 1.4% increase in revenue. And again - that's gross... not even accounting for development costs, marketing and distribution, let alone other intangibles like consumer confidence.

Virtually every suggestion in this thread makes more sense (Day14DLC, Free D1C, issuing out a Season Pass for Collector's Edition instead of D1DLC, what have you) then charging money for a Story-based, D1DLC content in order to get a pittance of revenue while hurting New game sales, increasing consumer animosity and, all-in-all, being painted as a greedy company.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 juillet 2013 - 11:05 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
 That is really stupid - getting flogged publicly for a 1.4% increase in revenue. And again - that's gross... not even accounting for development costs, marketing and distribution, let alone other intangibles like consumer confidence. 

...

Virtually every suggestion in this thread makes more sense (Day14DLC, Free D1C, issuing out a Season Pass for Collector's Edition instead of D1DLC, what have you) then charging money for a Story-based, D1DLC content in order to get a pittance of revenue while hurting New game sales, increasing consumer animosity and, all-in-all, being painted as a greedy company.

The video game industry has not understood just how toxic the negative word-of-mouth view of its product is to sales. DA:O's sales curve is a great example of how a series can - off positive word-of-mouth and steady sales - make a significant profit. That's precisely what Bioware should want.

The only company I've seen understand how to convert gamers' fragile egos and tribal alligeances into cash was CDProjekt. They converted TW2 into a console game - in terms of its gameplay - and actually toured around playing it on a controller, but because of the way they designed their engine to scale and (most of all) the rhetoric that they've constantly put out, they've built an excellent brand. 

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I honesty wouldn't trust EA/Bioware's Marketing/PR department to be able to sell bottled water in the Sahara.

Bioware, in many (silly) ways, reminds me of the Sardaukar from the Dune series. A force that was so successful and unblemished for so long, that their biggest weakness was their complete lack of experience with pure, abject failure.

Succeeding is a lot of work. Consistently being successful is a monumental task that takes a lot of talent. But failing? Failing is easy to do, but INCREDIBLY hard to do in a way that truly manages the damage and prevents all hell from breaking loose and washing away all the success you have had in the past.

In 2009, Bioware had been a darling of the industry for over a decade, with two back-to-back IPs debuted that had great potential for growth. Flash forward four/five years, and they are still known as a quality developer, but have had a not-insignificant-amount of its formerly devoted fans actively hate the company and its products, either in terms of being made a punch line in the industry to active vitriol to certain games, employees or even the entire developer.

Bioware doesn't just need success to clean their slate clean. They need to learn how to fail in a much better manner. Because, let's face it... Bioware's days of doing no wrong are long gone.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 août 2013 - 12:33 .

[Enigmatick]

I need a more rustic version of your post read by Ron Perlman.

[Fast Jimmy]

Enigmatick wrote...

I need a more rustic version of your post read by Ron Perlman.

Bio(War)e... Bio(War)e never changes. 

[LPPrince]

You'll learn more from your failures than your successes after all, if you're prepared to learn anything, that is.

[Realmzmaster]

cjones91 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

One assumption I find interesting is that you try to entice gamers who buy used to buy new by bundling  the dlc free with any new copy. But if I am buying used I am buying based on price. Would it not be more prudent for me to wait for the price of the used game to drop and buy the dlc at a price point below the price of a new game.

For example the price of the used game is $29.99 and price of the dlc is $10.00 for a total of $39.99. The price of the new game is $59.99. I save $20.00 of the new price. Unless Bioware decides it will not sale the dlc separate from the new game then you may have an incentive to buy new. But I do not see that generating any goodwill.

I bought ME2, new, from Gamestop for twenty bucks, around 10 months after it came out. It was only twenty bucks, but it's twenty bucks that went into Bioware's pocket, rather than them getting ten bucks from the DLC alone.

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are making the assumption that the free dlc will entice them to buy new. That will only happen if Bioware does not sale the dlc separately. If Bioware does sale the dlc separately I can buy the game used plus the dlc at a price cheaper than buying new. Where is the incentive  to buy new?

You're assuming that buying used AND buying the DLC will be cheaper than buying a new copy when the price drops. Case in point, see directly above.

No it is not $20.000 that went into Bioware's pocket espeically if you bought it at Gamestop that is not how retail and distribution works. There are no EA trucks running around distributing products to retailers. There are wholesalers , distributors and retail stores all in this mix. EA will only get a percentage of that sale or any sale. That is why publishers like EA and others want to get pre-orders and retail sales as close to MSRP as possible to get the most potential profit. 
Gamers who wait to buy the base game are less likely to buy the dlc. Gamers who pre order or buy first day or more likely to buy dlc because they have a greater interest in the series. Day1dlc makes sense to capture those sales.
 

That's not true at all.There are plenty of games people buy that are several years old and if the game is good will buy any Dlc to get more enjoyment out of the game.If a game is good then people will buy Dlc for it,if it's not then people will turn the game in.

The problem with game developers complaining about used games is something Nintendo talked about sometime ago.If you make a good game then people will hold onto it but if you make trash instead then they will try to recoup some of the money spent by selling their cop.Perhaps instead of complaining about used games the game industry should stop making crap.

So the only reason the used game market exists is for the selling of crap games. I guess the old adage must be true one man's treasure is another man's trash, because I see an awful lot of so-called great games being sold on the used market. I could swear I saw pre-owned copies of Skyrim, Dark Souls, and Witcher 2 in my local Gamestop.

I can only assume someone considered it to be crap. Maybe it was not to their tastes or maybe they finished it. What is crap to one person may not be crap to another. I guess that boils down to personal taste. That why there is a used market. A person sells the game to get money to buy the next great game that they may keep or not.

[Volus Warlord]

LPPrince wrote...

You'll learn more from your failures than your successes after all, if you're prepared to learn anything, that is.

It's more fun to use narcissism as a substitute for learning.

[Allan Schumacher]

after all, these play-and-burn players you talk about, while not rare, are hardly indicative of the average gamer's time frame, let alone the majority

What is the average gamer's time frame? (And if it's different than the majority's, what is the majority's too)