532 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

No. I'm saying that the people that were upset because it wasn't BG3 may have just been expecting something that NWN was never intended to be. Heck, had BioWare actually made BG3, I wouldn't be surprised if some would have still had unreasonable expectations for it.

Well the loading screens in BG2 saying you would be able to import your character into NWN might have had something to do with it 

But on to the topic at hand:  Content-based Day One dlc provides the image, real or not, that content was cut from teh game to be sold seperately.  This may not be true, but it's a very convincing optical illusion.  Particularly with the assets already on the disk.  People may stiull buy it, but I suspect it's more out of a sense of obligation to get the "complete experience"  than in not minding the shelling out of even more morey

Maybe the extra cash is worth the image problem.  But I think it does better for the old image to simply go the "free with new copy" route.

Otherwise why not wait a while, buy used, and use part of teh money you just saved buying the "Day 1" content?

[EmperorSahlertz]

You people all of course realzier that Day One DLC is what allows for games to still be sold at 60$ right? If this DLC should be included into the finished product, the product's price would rise, to around 70$ and that would be a whole other can of **** people wouldn't cease to complain about. At least now, we have the option to buy the game, at 60$, and enjoy the full game. The Day One DLC is after all, not mandatory for the game, and often doesn't expand much upon the story, if at all.

[Fast Jimmy]

Jimmy, you ask why not tread the more cautious path - as has been said, because the more cautious path isn't likely profitable enough. Selling more copies on day 1 and pissing off a small group of people is probably worth it. The amount of copies sold on day 1 is more than if that content were released on a date that did not ****** people off. You are certainly free to believe that the cost of negative publicity outweighs the profits made, but I doubt you are going to be able to convince anyone at Bioware of that. 

Except I just proved that the amount of DLC sold during the first week, the most "taboo" time to do so, is less than $5 million in revenue. Compared to the nearly $200+ million in revenue seen across the sales of the base game and it seems ludicrous. Even if the margins for DLC are 100% and the margins for base copies are only 20%, that's still only $4 million in this dangerous first week of the total $54 million, assuming a (ridiculous) 20% margin on game sales. More of a percentage than the 1% of gross revenue, for sure, but is it enough to counter the bad press, when competitors are releasing free DLC or DLC only after release?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 août 2013 - 01:42 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

Nrieh wrote...

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.

...probably, because NWN was mainly targeted on pen-n-paper DnD players, offering them exactly same experience, but only in 3d?.. No, really, it's so funny that some people still believe that NWN was actually 'a campaign', not a complex multi-player RPG engine with real-time GM-player interface, built-in toolset and widest possibilities. It's like believing that the only possible purpose of 'lego' is building that thing from a pic on the box. 'Oh, you lego is crap, that house is so dull, boring and ugly...'

People have never let Bethesda get away with the "It doesn't matter if the story's not that great, it's meant to be a construction set" excuse, so why should Bioware when they've got a history of better stories? Keep in mind that I like NWN and all, but there was (and is) criticism.

[Fast Jimmy]

scyphozoa wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
 but is it enough to counter the bad press, when competitors are releasing free DLC or DLC only after release?

That they continue to release DLC in this format and even go so far as writing and publishing an article on gamasutra about this format's success is your answer. Yes, it is enough.

To (again) clarify... Bioware has done a whopping ONE game with a strictly paid D1DLC model. They are not experts at it, despite what Melo may say at conferences. Their fans have come out in not-insignificant numbers to say it is a practice they do not want to see again. They have not had a game released since this move, so they have no way of judging how it truly affected sales of future games. 

So to say "Bioware knows best, because they made this decision" is a little misleading. 

[Fast Jimmy]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You people all of course realzier that Day One DLC is what allows for games to still be sold at 60$ right? If this DLC should be included into the finished product, the product's price would rise, to around 70$ and that would be a whole other can of **** people wouldn't cease to complain about. At least now, we have the option to buy the game, at 60$, and enjoy the full game. The Day One DLC is after all, not mandatory for the game, and often doesn't expand much upon the story, if at all.

"You people?" What do you mean by "you people?!"

[Mornmagor]

I am against Day One DLC.

You make something with the original budget, you don't charge extra for it.

You make something afterwards with additional funds? Then charge it extra.

Especially when it's a companion, something important in a party and story driven RPG like Dragon Age.

People will be tempted to buy it, isn't that the idea?

And no, the price for games does not go up if the Day One DLC is not there. We're talking about charging extra for something already done and accomplished by the original funding.

Modifié par Kuroi Kishin, 01 août 2013 - 02:17 .

[addiction21]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


Except I just proved

No, you have not proved anything. You plucked some numbers out of thin air and did some math that unsurprisingly supports your argument.

Fast Jimmy wrote...


To (again) clarify... Bioware has done a whopping ONE game with a strictly paid D1DLC model. They are not experts at it, despite what Melo may say at conferences. Their fans have come out in not-insignificant numbers to say it is a practice they do not want to see again. They have not had a game released since this move, so they have no way of judging how it truly affected sales of future games. 

So to say "Bioware knows best, because they made this decision" is a little misleading. 

But they also have all the EA games and those numbers to draw from.

[Fast Jimmy]

No, you have not proved anything. You plucked some numbers out of thin air and did some math that unsurprisingly supports your argument.

I didn't make these numbers up. Bioware is the one touting the 40% attachment rate during the first week for its 1 million + sales. That's simply math to equate roughly 400,000 units sold of the D1C during its first week. Again, simple math to also figure out that at $10 a pop, the revenue would be at or slightly above $4 million dollars.

You can contest that this is actually a lot of money to Bioware, or that the margins for new games are so slim that this more "pure" revenue stream is more actually money for them... but you wouldn't have any proof of these things. Regardless, the math is straightforward. If you'd like to point out where I'm making any mistakes, please show your own work.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 août 2013 - 03:09 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You people all of course realzier that Day One DLC is what allows for games to still be sold at 60$ right? If this DLC should be included into the finished product, the product's price would rise, to around 70$ and that would be a whole other can of **** people wouldn't cease to complain about. At least now, we have the option to buy the game, at 60$, and enjoy the full game. The Day One DLC is after all, not mandatory for the game, and often doesn't expand much upon the story, if at all.

"You people?" What do you mean by "you people?!"

BSN'ers in general. Most on here come on and decalre their absolute disdain of D1DLC and claim it is not a lucrative business and waht not, and have absolutely no grasp of economics, business, and much less on game development economics and game development business. Other claim that D1DLC is by difinition lucrative, and show the exact same lack of grasp on the concept.

Matter of fact is, by the end of the day, a lot of people a lot more clever than us, has worked on the business model that BioWare uses, and have concluded that the one they use, is the one best suited for their business. Wether or not any of us hate the idea of dishing out a little more for a "full" BioWare game, than for an average game, is irrelevant, as long as BioWare reaches the same conclusion, that D1DLC is lucrative.

[LinksOcarina]

Lucrative, and popular.

Considering BioWare has done this since 2005 with Jade Empire (Special Edition characters still count in my book) and no one has such batted an eye until Mass Effect 3 because of a perception of the character being essential or "removed" from the game, I can't help but see the backlash as arguments for the sake of arguments type of deal.

I asked a friend on how game coding would work, and is it possible to lock/unlock characters like that and remove them entirely. He basically said yes, but if the character was taken out for DLC, aspects of the character would still remain on-file for smoother integration. So to the claims he is on disk, he has to be on disk to work, it seems.

As for the removal from the game to charge for it, that we will never have proof of unless we see the notes on the game, and how the planned it from within. That is usually more valuable than presumptions made on a forum honestly, and I doubt they will show it.

In the end though, I would bet money that the majority will not hesitate to buy a DLC on day one. Mainly because A) they don't give a damn one way or another the origins of the DLC, and they want instant gratification now. Illogical emotions kind of run through all of this, this is why its good marketting, the DLC becomes an impulse buy in some ways due to that. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 01 août 2013 - 03:38 .

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

In the end though, I would bet money that the majority will not hesitate to buy a DLC on day one. Mainly because A) they don't give a damn one way or another the origins of the DLC, and they want instant gratification now. Illogical emotions kind of run through all of this, this is why its good marketting, the DLC becomes an impulse buy in some ways due to that. 

I wouldn't call it "good marketing"  Effective maybe, but it get a definite predatory vibe.

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

In the end though, I would bet money that the majority will not hesitate to buy a DLC on day one. Mainly because A) they don't give a damn one way or another the origins of the DLC, and they want instant gratification now. Illogical emotions kind of run through all of this, this is why its good marketting, the DLC becomes an impulse buy in some ways due to that. 

I wouldn't call it "good marketing"  Effective maybe, but it get a definite predatory vibe.

A predatory vibe is what companies like Capcom do, charging money for costume packs and colors for 2 bucks for Street Fighter. If we really want to get into this only The Old Republic fits that description because of the Free 2 Play model they instituted, but that is not here nor there. 

What the day one DLC stuff is different, it is designed to be support for the product. Did you know that big chain stores want proof you are supporting your game or else they won't carry it, or at most only take a small, initial order? I am talking about places like Wal-Mart, which has a large share of video game sales now a days.

The way a lot of companies do season passes now reflects the cycle for development, basically, all of the stuff "cut out" was likely planned and developed seperately or concurrently with the main game development, depending on time of release. From a business standpoint this is simply to show support for the product, give people more content, and get paid doing good work.

Is that really predatory to add content in that sense? If it was really malicious, BioWare would have charged for the extended cut for Mass Effect 3, and as we know  Hudson shot that down quick. So I don't see how what this company is doing is predatory. 

[Iakus]

I find it predatory because it preys on the audience' need for instant gratification or a "complete experience"

Like I said, I don't mind paid Day 1 DLC that simply item packs, cosmetic extras, or other non-story based content. Fuun extras, if you will.

But actual story content should be limited to "free with new copy" Keep it as an encouragement not to buy the game used. Like Shale and Zaeed.

[Fast Jimmy]

Lucrative, and popular.

I question how lucrative it is for Paid D1DLC, as opposed to DLC released later or D1DLC used as a an incentive for New Games sales.

And popular may not be the best word. I mean, crack cocaine or ice crystal meth has a very large client base that will buy the product, regardless. That doesn't make it "popular," neccessarily. It just means it will be fairly likely to sell.

And for that, we really don't know. DA:O's Shale D1DLC had a 55% attachment rate being free over the lifetime of the product, a number that is surprisingly low. Maybe that means half the fans will use D1DLC, regardless of if it is paid or not.

Maybe it means that half of the players aren't connected to the Internet and won't have access to any DLC, regardless.

Maybe it means Bioware could get away with a $70 price tag for the base game with no DLC,but expect to lose have their volume.

Or maybe it means half the people know various ways to fall outside the net of Bioware's metric tracking systems, making all of the data they collected null and void.


Regardless, I'd say that assuming they are either lucrative or popular just because Bioware engages in them is a bit of a false assumption.

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

I find it predatory because it preys on the audience' need for instant gratification or a "complete experience"

Like I said, I don't mind paid Day 1 DLC that simply item packs, cosmetic extras, or other non-story based content. Fuun extras, if you will.

But actual story content should be limited to "free with new copy" Keep it as an encouragement not to buy the game used. Like Shale and Zaeed.

Problem is retailers threated to not carry the products when they did that. I said this before but I was working at Gamestop when both games came out, and we were told by our manager to not sell Mass Effect 2 new. Sell it used only. And if worse comes to worse, lie about the DLC inside of it.

Needless to say, I didn't do that, but retailers were threatened by the "free" DLC because it cut into the used market sales they were making heavily, forcing them to charge less for the game used when it hit store shelves.

I doubt we will see it again. It  was EA's best move but it was also the one that got them in trouble. 

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Lucrative, and popular.

I question how lucrative it is for Paid D1DLC, as opposed to DLC released later or D1DLC used as a an incentive for New Games sales.

And popular may not be the best word. I mean, crack cocaine or ice crystal meth has a very large client base that will buy the product, regardless. That doesn't make it "popular," neccessarily. It just means it will be fairly likely to sell.

And for that, we really don't know. DA:O's Shale D1DLC had a 55% attachment rate being free over the lifetime of the product, a number that is surprisingly low. Maybe that means half the fans will use D1DLC, regardless of if it is paid or not.

Maybe it means that half of the players aren't connected to the Internet and won't have access to any DLC, regardless.

Maybe it means Bioware could get away with a $70 price tag for the base game with no DLC,but expect to lose have their volume.

Or maybe it means half the people know various ways to fall outside the net of Bioware's metric tracking systems, making all of the data they collected null and void.


Regardless, I'd say that assuming they are either lucrative or popular just because Bioware engages in them is a bit of a false assumption.

Well, lets put it this way.

If it wasn't pouplar or lucrative, why do they still do it? In fact, why do all companies release day one DLC, or dlc withn the first 14 days, as you suggested?

If you are worried about actual numbers, we will never know them, only esitmates. It is not, however, a false assumption because it is the standard M.O of the gaming industry at this point to provide DLC on day one in some form as incentive. 

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Problem is retailers threated to not carry the products when they did that. I said this before but I was working at Gamestop when both games came out, and we were told by our manager to not sell Mass Effect 2 new. Sell it used only. And if worse comes to worse, lie about the DLC inside of it.

Needless to say, I didn't do that, but retailers were threatened by the "free" DLC because it cut into the used market sales they were making heavily, forcing them to charge less for the game used when it hit store shelves.

I doubt we will see it again. It  was EA's best move but it was also the one that got them in trouble. 

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Just because Gamestop made a scumbag move doesn't mean EA should sink to their level (ah, who am I kidding, here?)

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Problem is retailers threated to not carry the products when they did that. I said this before but I was working at Gamestop when both games came out, and we were told by our manager to not sell Mass Effect 2 new. Sell it used only. And if worse comes to worse, lie about the DLC inside of it.

Needless to say, I didn't do that, but retailers were threatened by the "free" DLC because it cut into the used market sales they were making heavily, forcing them to charge less for the game used when it hit store shelves.

I doubt we will see it again. It  was EA's best move but it was also the one that got them in trouble. 

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Just because Gamestop made a scumbag move doesn't mean EA should sink to their level (ah, who am I kidding, here?)

Assuming one is wrong though, thats the problem.

Say no EA games were carried in Gamestop, how much of their sales would they lose? 5%? 10%? 30%? 

It really doesn't matter the number, the point though is they still lose those sales, which in turn affects the company. Its really a lose-lose for EA, so they likely went with the method that would lose the least amount of sales that way, again assuming what they did after free in box content is wrong. 

[Fast Jimmy]

No offense Jimmy, but you're suggesting that Bioware and EA are making content at either a loss or without any significant gain? Do you really think they would continually do this for multiple games?

No offense taken, because they haven't.

DA:O and ME2 has free D1DLC. DA2 had free D1DLC for any one who pre-ordered. ME3 was the first game they have done that used true story/content based D1DLC being paid for everyone. EA doesn't have much more experience with this (again, something other than cosmetic/gear/weapon packs/etc.). In fact, EA said that the model of ME3 would be used as a model for all of EA going forward, meaning that EA would be using a Bioware product as the primary base of experience in this field, not the other way around.

[Fast Jimmy]

Say no EA games were carried in Gamestop, how much of their sales would they lose? 5%? 10%? 30%?

I'd argue none.

GameStop's sole draw is a gamer culture and Used Games. You can go to Target, BestBuy or Wal-Mart and buy the exact same product for the exact same price. GameStop may, indeed, encourage their employees to be shady about promoting Used over New sales, but they wouldn't be so stupid as to directly forbid sales of games that had Free D1DLC in their stores. It's too widely available of a commodity. BestBuy, Wal-Mart and Target have a multitude more locations, many more customers to draw appeal and an infinitely more powerful marketing machine. If they wanted to (or saw any value in it), they could put every GameStop in America out of business if they so desired.

If GameStop wants to play chicken with publishers about not carrying titles, that will be their out tombstone epitaphs, not any threat to the publishers sales volumes.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 août 2013 - 04:50 .