532 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

The average gamer doesn't finish the game, so I can't imagine it takes them more than a week to move on to something else.

[AlanC9]

I wonder what the tracking data has to say about that.

[Allan Schumacher]

The average gamer doesn't finish the game, so I can't imagine it takes them more than a week to move on to something else.

That's typically been my assumption, but in most cases I'm just making an assumption myself.

I'd consider a game like Skyrim to be a very successful game, but Steam's achievement rates still surprised me. And these numbers haven't really changed since I last looked at them over a year ago now, so I couldn't even conclude that it's just people buying the game on Steam sales (the game has never been a very cheap game though, since I have it on my Wishlist and will likely pick it up once it goes below $20).

10.3% of the Steam gamers (I am making the assumption that the numbers don't differ much compared to consoles. I could make cases for why they could be higher OR lower).

16.5% never reach level 5.
23.2% never reach level 10.

Now, I don't know how long it takes to get to level 25, but I am getting the impression it's a bit of a decent time investment, and it's here where I start to go "Okay, people may have played this game for some time" as it's up at 59.2%. But less than half get a skill up to 100 (Max I assume - granted maybe most spread their points around so it's less reliable of a metric). A mere 33.7% complete 10 sidequests. (!!) That number was very surprising for me, as if it's like Oblivion or Morrowind, finding and doing side quests is pretty common.

The numbers start to get pretty low, though I have zero clue how much time it takes to get these types of achievements. I'm assuming level 50 is max, which is 22.4% and I would wager is a pretty good time investment.

[LPPrince]

Skyrim's max level is actually 81, which you reach when every skill is at 100.

50 is when the soft level cap comes into place.

[Allan Schumacher]

It's off topic, so following up via PM.

[cjones91]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

I agree on the personal tastes thing, but there is a lot of very low quality games in most used game stores that people turn in because they aren't worth the initial price.Until the AAA game industry takes Nintendo's advice and stop releasing yearly rehashes and games that aren't worth 60$ then they should look forward to even more people turning their games.

[DarkBornPhoenix]

Back on the topic of "Day One DLCs" day one DLCs are good but as for DA2s day one DLC the character that came with it was good. But lacked something in which I cant think of now. As for DAO day one DLC shale was funny and great to have it WAS worth buying. But if you want people to want to buy DLCs give them a small taste of it like in resident evil ORC they had a free DLC it was a demo of sorts. That's my opinion

[Paul E Dangerously]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

Yeah, this? This never existed. NWN was a poor replacement for BG2, mainly because most of the development was packed into the toolset and the campaign felt like an afterthought. Jade Empire's basically a flat out action game with RPG elements, and it got flak for that and for being (relatively) short. DAO even got quite a bit of hate because it didn't live up to BG2, either - and for being too much like an MMO with the hotkey/cooldown based combat.

Bioware's always gotten flak. It's never really had the amount of hate DA2 and ME3 got, but it didn't have 4chan's /v/ and Reddit to go stomping around the internet like they own the place, either.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

Yeah, this? This never existed. NWN was a poor replacement for BG2, mainly because most of the development was packed into the toolset and the campaign felt like an afterthought. Jade Empire's basically a flat out action game with RPG elements, and it got flak for that and for being (relatively) short. DAO even got quite a bit of hate because it didn't live up to BG2, either - and for being too much like an MMO with the hotkey/cooldown based combat.

Bioware's always gotten flak. It's never really had the amount of hate DA2 and ME3 got, but it didn't have 4chan's /v/ and Reddit to go stomping around the internet like they own the place, either.

As I've said in this thread multiple times, perception is reality.

Each of their games had individual problems and concerns, points where things were deficient or called out... but overall as a developer, they received very high critical acclaim, from both the professional and indie review outlets.

Many consumers had the mindset that they could do no wrong, even if, when pressed, there were wrongs that could be quoted. That mindset is no longer as prevalent.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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)

Well, I'd first off like to say it would be extremely difficult to find and calculate an average, since it would require tracking when a new game was purchased and when it was sold by the same individual, which would be problematic even if they bought and sold it through the same retailer. I am imagine GameStops reward program could offer insight, but it would only be a snapshot.

Regardless, WedBush Morgan's report seems to show that roughly 100 million used games are sold a year, a third of the total games sold when the report came out in 2009. That would indicate half of the gamers are not selling their games back at all. However, these "earn-and-burn" sellers, as I've dubbed them, would by default fall into a small demographic simply by some selective factors.

First, they would need to buy the game on Day One (or very close to it), meaning they would be industry savvy enough to monitor release dates. They would have a large amount of disposable time in order to even get through a modest 15 hour campaign within a five to ten day timespan. And they would have incentive to sell said game back after this time span, presumably (according to the report, to trade in for a new purchase, showing a high rate of playing and completing games. 

Again, while not so rare as to be unheard of, it would not be anywhere in line with factors and realities the average consumer would meet, but strict logistics alone.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 août 2013 - 06:11 .

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

Yeah, this? This never existed. NWN was a poor replacement for BG2, mainly because most of the development was packed into the toolset and the campaign felt like an afterthought. Jade Empire's basically a flat out action game with RPG elements, and it got flak for that and for being (relatively) short. DAO even got quite a bit of hate because it didn't live up to BG2, either - and for being too much like an MMO with the hotkey/cooldown based combat.

Bioware's always gotten flak. It's never really had the amount of hate DA2 and ME3 got, but it didn't have 4chan's /v/ and Reddit to go stomping around the internet like they own the place, either.

As I've said in this thread multiple times, perception is reality.

Each of their games had individual problems and concerns, points where things were deficient or called out... but overall as a developer, they received very high critical acclaim, from both the professional and indie review outlets.

Many consumers had the mindset that they could do no wrong, even if, when pressed, there were wrongs that could be quoted. That mindset is no longer as prevalent.

Each later game of course didn't satisfy some of the fans of the previous one.  But BioWare, as a company, to gamers and game journalists in general, could do no major wrong... until DA2.  And ME3.

Yes, there are still people complaining that every step since MDK2 has been a misstep for the company.  You can find some people to support pretty much ANY opinion.  You can find a good percentage of people who believe the world is flat... that the sun goes around the earth - http://www.gallup.co...dge-Levels.aspx ... who believe floride causes mind control... who believe that there are really vampires...
who believe they really ARE vampires - http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=9173328 ...

but, despite those beliefs held by many people, you can still rightly say that, in general, people know that vampires don't exist or that the earth goes around the sun.

And, until DA2, most gamers thought postively of BioWare (unless, you know, they just didn't like BioWare's type of games period.)

Modifié par MerinTB, 01 août 2013 - 06:11 .

[Fast Jimmy]

However, I'd go back to the assumption that the average gamer does, in fact, buy a game and then sells it back within the first week.

Assuming it is true, would selling D1DLC, which can only amount to an insanely small amount of total revenue compared to the gross sales amount, be a better tactic than giving said DLC away for free on Day One, if it runs the risk of the player encountering, using and liking that content, therefore delaying their weekly trip to GameStop by even one day (and, hence, allowing more exposure time for primarily the New Game sales, of which one copy sold generates as much revenue as six D1DLC downloads)?

<now THAT'S what I call a run-on sentence>

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 août 2013 - 06:13 .

[Allan Schumacher]

As I've said in this thread multiple times, perception is reality.

As a scientist, I have seen perception get smashed repeatedly, over and over again by empiricism. Reality is reality, and what people may think they see is routinely shown otherwise. Whether or not they choose to believe it is another thing. And what people say and how they behave is often not in alignment.

People may feel cheated, but if that's the case you send contrary messaging if you proclaim to dislike something but then pay full price for it. If your declaration of "perception is reality," what these actions could make me perceive is that, while you may be outspoken about it, fundamentally you're okay with it because you were still willing to pay for it... it's just a standard circumstance of a consumer saying "Hey, I'd like this to be cheaper." Is this perception invalid? If so, then is perception still reality, because that's the perception a lot of people have. It then leads to the perception of entitlement by those that feel the complaining is unjustified. I know the idea of people saying you're entitled makes you upset, but if perception is reality... then isn't that the cross you have to bear then, and any protestations you make to that claim not really relevant? Because what I am seeing is that our perceptions are not in alignment. One of them must not be true. You can say that the larger aggregate has more weight, but I would still be skeptical that, if people don't adjust their purchasing decisions that the results they hope for would effectively be achieved. Once the reality of "we're not purchasing this stuff any more" is achieved, then the impetus of changes is put on you.

Though the cynic in me does point out that early you point out that gamers are irrational and that businesses need to work around that irrationality, to which I could say that paid day-one DLC may do just that. People protest, yet still purchase... it's irrational.

Well, I'd first off like to say it would be extremely difficult to find and calculate an average, since it would require tracking when a new game was purchased and when it was sold by the same individual, which would be problematic even if they bought and sold it through the same retailer. I am imagine GameStops reward program could offer insight, but it would only be a snapshot.

Sorry I misunderstood, in that I was looking more at just the "time spent in game" rather than "time until resale." Still, from everything I have heard shows that there is a very strong inverse correlation to time after launch, and DLC attach rate. I believe that From Ashes is our best selling DLC to date.


In conclusion, I will summarize by pointing out that logic is also something that gets smashed by empiricism repeatedly. Making a logical assertion, many of which I would say are even plausible, does not mean that it's actually the way reality is. We have a bias to overstate our own analysis because, frankly, we have ego and if we actually felt the world behaved in a different way, we'd present that logical construct instead of another. Simply because something makes logical sense, and is in alignment with the way we wish to perceive the world, doesn't mean that that is the way the world actually is. And I know of an MMO where the rate of MTX purchasing is very strongly correlated to the amount of complaining said user does about MTX. (The ones who complain the most, buy the most MTX... probably because they're more likely to actually be interested in said MTX, otherwise they wouldn't care and wouldn't complain).

[Allan Schumacher]

New Game sales, of which one copy sold generates as much revenue as six D1DLC downloads)?

Don't forget the differences in profit margin between the two products however.


Having said that (since I'm evidently splitting my post somewhat), you are correct that it may not be worth gamer goodwill. I don't know this (I don't think anyone really does). It could very well be short term gain at long term cost, which ultimately isn't worth it, and I know it's not something we're oblivious to.

A lot of the DLC stuff is frankly, trials. If we don't try it, we won't really know how it reacts. If the world went "This seems perfectly fair and reasonable" then we'd have been silly to never try it. But you run into that muddy issue of "some people don't like it. And some people may actually stop buying our stuff. But in the long run, if we make up that loss with the increased DLC sales, should we do it?" Crystal balls come in handy here, but alas I dropped mine.

You are correct that DLC is in large ways risk mitigation. It's risk mitigation for the entire project even. But it's easy to simply say "If you released it two weeks later, it'd be better." Maybe we just need to actually try it (please people don't take this post as some sort of hint to our DLC policy for DAI). Although there's uncertainty. If it DOESN'T work, how much will that cost us? If it's close or just a little bit, well then that's probably okay. If we do see significant decline, well then that is teh suck. Assuming we can control for variables such as quality.... so the thing continues to be messy.


My personal preference? Free for new purchases. I am pretty sure Stone Prisoner was actually still a good seller in and of itself (I think we were even able to confirm that some pirates bought it!), and has much, MUCH better optics. I don't know the numbers, but I would hope that (assuming it isn't superior) it's not too far off the paid DLC, and I can only hope that in the long run it pays off with better customer loyalty (since this is more likely a long term benefit, rather than a short term one).

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Assuming it is true, would selling D1DLC, which can only amount to an insanely small amount of total revenue compared to the gross sales amount, be a better tactic than giving said DLC away for free on Day One, if it runs the risk of the player encountering, using and liking that content, therefore delaying their weekly trip to GameStop by even one day (and, hence, allowing more exposure time for primarily the New Game sales, of which one copy sold generates as much revenue as six D1DLC downloads)?

Without a percentage for the "risk" it's impossible to evaluate this.

I'm also not at all clear how keeping people out of the game store for another day is an advantage. What's the mechanism there?

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm also not at all clear how keeping people out of the game store for another day is an advantage. What's the mechanism there?

I think by keeping a "reseller" out of the store for a day, means that for one more day the supply of used games is lower, and as such may lead to increased new game sales over used sales.

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree that empiricism often proves our base assumptions about reality wrong... but that doesn't mean those assumptions can then be ignored. Quite the contrary, people will FIGHT education about how their views are wrong, often with invalid or skewed data, tooth and nail.

In many ways, understanding if an assumption is right or wrong is only a small part of the battle. You can know exactly what you are talking about and still not be able to course correct other's behavior with your correct data.

As I said in an earlier post, many people perceive Paid D1DLC to be a greedy cash grab. The reality of that is not important. Because that person will believe it. They will complain about it - to the company, but also to their friends and peers (which is infinitely more damaging). And it will require the parent company to address those concerns as if they are actually greedy and needing to defend themselves, while also losing sales/revenue because of it.

Ultimately, the fact of whether or not the company is greedy for engaging in these practices is, for practical purposes, moot. Because everyone is acting as if it is true (even the company by having to deny the fact that it is not), it makes it the reality everyone is operating in.



This brings to mind an off-topic thought about the Soviet Space program in the 60's and 70's. the program itself was plagued by cost, engineering and logistical problems, but the Soviet government kept the entire program itself under incredibly tight informational wraps, that nothing was leaked until the event was at full fruition. Soviet citizens would suddenly, out of nowhere, hear that Sputnik was launched or they had put a man into orbit, giving the appearance of the innovations simply popping up out of the ground due to the Soviet government's brilliant initiative, when, in reality, the program suffered from many delays, setbacks and failures that its people (and the world) were simply completely not aware of.

This seemingly infallible Soviet space program, however, spurned the U.S. to take very aggressive action with its own Space Program, seeing them being left in the dust by the supernatural success and speed of the Soviets. Again... the reality was not important for the vast majority of people, as everyone except a select few were operating under the same assumption. When that happens, logic and empiricism often take a backseat to perception.

[AlanC9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
My personal preference? Free for new purchases. I am pretty sure Stone Prisoner was actually still a good seller in and of itself (I think we were even able to confirm that some pirates bought it!), and has much, MUCH better optics. I don't know the numbers, but I would hope that (assuming it isn't superior) it's not too far off the paid DLC, and I can only hope that in the long run it pays off with better customer loyalty (since this is more likely a long term benefit, rather than a short term one).

If you guys start worrying about the "optics," don't you end up with some pretty ludicrous incentives? Such as sending the DLC team on vacation before the release date so you don't accidentally have the first DLC go gold too early?

[Allan Schumacher]

If you guys start worrying about the "optics," don't you end up with some pretty ludicrous incentives? Such as sending the DLC team on vacation before the release date so you don't accidentally have the first DLC go gold too early?

I'll admit I'm not entirely sure where this is going. My initial reaction was "he's making a silly post" but I didn't want to make a flippant remark in return because I'm not confident I read this correctly...

[Fast Jimmy]

You are correct that DLC is in large ways risk mitigation. It's risk mitigation for the entire project even. But it's easy to simply say "If you released it two weeks later, it'd be better." Maybe we just need to actually try it (please people don't take this post as some sort of hint to our DLC policy for DAI). Although there's uncertainty. If it DOESN'T work, how much will that cost us? If it's close or just a little bit, well then that's probably okay. If we do see significant decline, well then that is teh suck. Assuming we can control for variables such as quality.... so the thing continues to be messy.

My only point out here would be that other developers have released DLC in Week 2/3 and have seen negligible amount of flak for if, at least in comparison to the Day One content (an example could be Borderlands 2). Obviously, anyone familiar with the industry conversation would say "well, they clearly were working on the DLC during production and could have easily ramped up to have it released on Day One... that won't fool anyone." But, apparently, it does.

Now, whether that lack of protest really means consumer goodwill is more intact than with Day One, which is protested is difficult to prove. As well as whether losing tht goodwill truly does result in lost sales.

But again, for the 400,000-500,000 who bought the From Ashes DLC on Day One, revenue in the amount of $4-5 million was gained. While nothing to sneeze at, that is a drop in the bucket of the full sales revenue (barely over 1% for ME3's book of business). Is 1% worth a PR disaster? Even with 100% margins, I can't imagine it being so.

I understand that you don't know until you try, as well, but I would think that market research might be done beforehand to see how things like the perception of on-disc content that ties directly into the Day One DLC might cause consumer negativity, but I don't want to assume anything about internal policy making or research on the behalf of Bioware/EA (not sure if that would be more of a corporate function or they prefer/allow individual developers to collect and analyze their own data).

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
My personal preference? Free for new purchases. I am pretty sure Stone Prisoner was actually still a good seller in and of itself (I think we were even able to confirm that some pirates bought it!), and has much, MUCH better optics. I don't know the numbers, but I would hope that (assuming it isn't superior) it's not too far off the paid DLC, and I can only hope that in the long run it pays off with better customer loyalty (since this is more likely a long term benefit, rather than a short term one).

If you guys start worrying about the "optics," don't you end up with some pretty ludicrous incentives? Such as sending the DLC team on vacation before the release date so you don't accidentally have the first DLC go gold too early?

I'd say that, with any piece of content, the people who make it feel there always could be more work done to make it better before release. Given an extra few weeks/a month, I'm confident that the teams involved would find more to do. 

[Maria Caliban]

I don't know what 'optics' are in regards to game sales.

[Fast Jimmy]

My personal preference? Free for new purchases.

I can see The Examiner articles now...

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I don't know what 'optics' are in regards to game sales.

Kinect sensors. 

D1DLC is better wih Kinect.

[devSin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

My personal preference? Free for new purchases. I am pretty sure Stone Prisoner was actually still a good seller in and of itself (I think we were even able to confirm that some pirates bought it!), and has much, MUCH better optics. I don't know the numbers, but I would hope that (assuming it isn't superior) it's not too far off the paid DLC, and I can only hope that in the long run it pays off with better customer loyalty (since this is more likely a long term benefit, rather than a short term one).

From Ashes had an obscene attach rate, however, which is why you'll be doing first-day DLC for DA3 (rather than first-sale, which your company doesn't even do anymore) and why it will more than likely be substantial.

Certainly, Fernando never got up on stage to trumpet Stone Prisoner numbers, at least that I can recall.

Modifié par devSin, 01 août 2013 - 07:26 .