532 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

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. 

I'd say lying to your customers (or telling your employees to lie to your custmers) is wrong. 

And if that came out, I'm sure GameStop would have come out the worse for it, PR-wise.  Heck, EA might even be able to work off some of that "Company Most Aligned With The Dark Side" imagery they've built up. 

But as far as I'm concerned, Content-based Day One DLC is actually a dis-incentive to buy right away.  I'm far more likely to wait a few months until the price comes down.

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

What critical plot points did from the Ashes include?

'Hey, Javik, do you know anything important about the Crucible, our one real chance for beating the Reapers?'

'Nope.'

'Oh.'


He provided lore, but lore isn't plot.

I'll verify this. I've never bought any ME3 DLCs, but since I hang out on the ME3 Story board I hear plot points from Leviathan all the time. I've never heard one from From Ashes. Because there aren't any.

Now, if Leviathan had been day 1 DLC, I would have been quite annoyed.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 août 2013 - 05:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Right and as I said, Day 1 DLC has been an iterative process. It would be silly to think that the sales, metrics and budgets that went into DAO/DA2 and Me2 did not play a role in the iteration of ME3's DLC. Its not like this is new, its just a new iteration of something that has been done for years now. DAO and ME2 have free Day 1 DLC for new game buyers, the idea was to incentivize buying new over used. DA2 had free day 1 DLC if you pre-ordered the limited edition, which further incentivizes buying and pre-ordering new. ME3 has included Day1 DLc for people who buy the Collector's edition (which needed to be pre-ordered in advanced because it did sell out of physical copies in most stores). Again, you see how this is an iterative process. EA is incentivizing buying new, pre-ordering,  and now buying the Collector's Edition.  Its not something totally unfounded or out of left field, it is a pretty straight and clear line from where they started to where they are now. 

It is not unreasonable to expect that Bioware will continue to iterate and tweak and make changes. But the fundamental aspect of Day 1 DLC is pretty much set in stone at this point. It will be here, and it will likely be used to incentivize buying or pre-ordering new games or Special Editions. 

The process has been a step-by-step one, yes. And many gamers, critics and even industry economists say this was one step too far. That would seem to indicate that Bioware may look at taking a step back or, at the least, evaluating their marketing to not appear to be doing the same thing for appearances sake (even if they aren't).

To say that this is the course that EA/Bioware is on and there is no stopping it, no matter what anyone says betrays an extreme sense of hubris on behalf of the business leaders involved, especially as competitors in the industry use these other, "safer" methods to great effect in their games.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 août 2013 - 05:04 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
But as far as I'm concerned, Content-based Day One DLC is actually a dis-incentive to buy right away.  I'm far more likely to wait a few months until the price comes down.

How does day 1 DLC change that incentive? The game will be cheaper later whether or not there's a day 1 DLC, right?

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
But as far as I'm concerned, Content-based Day One DLC is actually a dis-incentive to buy right away.  I'm far more likely to wait a few months until the price comes down.

How does day 1 DLC change that incentive? The game will be cheaper later whether or not there's a day 1 DLC, right?

THis is correct.  However, if I wait a few months and the game is, say $20 cheaper, I can buy it, and teh $10 DLC that was available at the same time, and still come out ten bucks ahead

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The process has been a step-by-step one, yes. And many gamers, critics and even industry economists say this was one step too far. That would seem to indicate that Bioware may look at taking a step back or, at the least, evaluating their marketing to not appear to be doing the same thing for appearances sake (even if they aren't).

Ummm... you are aware that what you've been presenting in this thread is essentially a long parade of hypotheticals, right?

Sure, they might  reevaluate things. They might not. They might do more DLC and raise the full game prices to $70. They might move to a subscription model and not sell any base games at all.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 août 2013 - 05:19 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...


THis is correct.  However, if I wait a few months and the game is, say $20 cheaper, I can buy it, and teh $10 DLC that was available at the same time, and still come out ten bucks ahead

And if there was no DLC you'd come out $20 ahead.

Is this one of those emotional things that I don't follow?

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...


THis is correct.  However, if I wait a few months and the game is, say $20 cheaper, I can buy it, and teh $10 DLC that was available at the same time, and still come out ten bucks ahead

And if there was no DLC you'd come out $20 ahead.

Is this one of those emotional things that I don't follow?

Could be.  My contention is that Day 1 DLC that contains missions, NPCs, and such give the impression, accurate or otherwise, that the game is not "really complete" unless you buy the DLC as well.  Thus if you wait until the price drops, you get the whole game without having to pay extra.

It has nothing to do with whether the DLC is actually cut content (I happen to agree with you that Javik is not a necessary component of ME3) but in the appearance that it is.

[Fast Jimmy]

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. 

I guess I have a different mental image of lucrative than you. An extra 1-2% of total revenue over the course of a 2-3 project is a mere efficiency improvement, not a "lucrative" proposition. You don't hear stock picks offering a "lucrative" increase in sales of half a percent a year, aggregate.

As you and others keep saying, we don't have access to the hard stats. The hard stats we DO have access to I have shown using basic arithmetic result in MAYBE a quarter of the total marketing budget (EA spent $747 million in marketing in 2011, so let's assume it didn't increase into 2012, then see that they released 35 games during that same year, we can do a quick and dirty extrapolation of ~$20 million a game, making silly assumptions that a mobile game has the same marketing as FIFA, just to be conservative) let alone the real cost or profit of the game.

Again, $4-$5 million in revenue over the first week is not a game changer. Even if the adoption rates of the first DLC released on Week 2 or 3 would lose this entire number (which is ludicrous to suggest, but we'll go ahead with it), you've still lost out on very little in terms of the overall project. Which isn't good... unless the means you use to get that extra $4 million wind up having your fans posting hate statements about it a year later, game editorials still bring it up in comparison as a way to NOT do things and a Google search for "Day One DLC" sees your company's name pop up more than once on the first page.

I'm not saying DLC doesn't make sense. I'm not even saying D1DLC doesn't make sense (although there are certainly alternatives). I'm saying Paid D1DLC makes no sense. Not from any data we've been supplied by the people who are in the know.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 août 2013 - 05:39 .

[IC-07]

I really liked it when they cut Javik from the the game just to put him in a priced DLC. It was very innovative. I'm all for such Day 1 DLC.

[MerinTB]

Day One DLC =  The Bad.

/discussion ended.

:innocent:

[Fast Jimmy]

MerinTB wrote...

Day One DLC =  The Bad.

/discussion ended.

:innocent:

Your math is undeniable.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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. 

I guess I have a different mental image of lucrative than you. An extra 1-2% of total revenue over the course of a 2-3 project is a mere efficiency improvement, not a "lucrative" proposition. You don't hear stock picks offering a "lucrative" increase in sales of half a percent a year, aggregate.

As you and others keep saying, we don't have access to the hard stats. The hard stats we DO have access to I have shown using basic arithmetic result in MAYBE a quarter of the total marketing budget (EA spent $747 million in marketing in 2011, so let's assume it didn't increase into 2012, then see that they released 35 games during that same year, we can do a quick and dirty extrapolation of ~$20 million a game, making silly assumptions that a mobile game has the same marketing as FIFA, just to be conservative) let alone the real cost or profit of the game.

Again, $4-$5 million in revenue over the first week is not a game changer. Even if the adoption rates of the first DLC released on Week 2 or 3 would lose this entire number (which is ludicrous to suggest, but we'll go ahead with it), you've still lost out on very little in terms of the overall project. Which isn't good... unless the means you use to get that extra $4 million wind up having your fans posting hate statements about it a year later, game editorials still bring it up in comparison as a way to NOT do things and a Google search for "Day One DLC" sees your company's name pop up more than once on the first page.

I'm not saying DLC doesn't make sense. I'm not even saying D1DLC doesn't make sense (although there are certainly alternatives). I'm saying Paid D1DLC makes no sense. Not from any data we've been supplied by the people who are in the know.

When the chances of a game even breaking even in the current market are almost less than 30% without brand recognition, an extra 1-2% per game adds up for the company overall. 

That is why its lucrative, a little bit goes a longer way. They are looking for game changers yes, but realistically its not going to happen, so any bit helps them lose less money. What the fans think is really irrelevent, because the fans will still buy it. 

You are right that mathematically they will be taking a loss. It's more of a question of how do we bleed slowly instead of slitting our throats. THQ is an example of that. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 01 août 2013 - 06:09 .

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Day One DLC =  The Bad.
/discussion ended.
:innocent:

Your math is undeniable.

I figured, in this case, less was more.

[Fast Jimmy]

When the chances of a game even breaking even in the current market are almost less than 30% without brand recognition, an extra 1-2% per game adds up for the company overall. 
That is why its lucrative, a little bit goes a longer way. They are looking for game changers yes, but realistically its not going to happen, so any bit helps them lose less money. What the fans think is really irrelevent, because the fans will still buy it. 
You are right that mathematically they will be taking a loss. It's more of a question of how do we bleed slowly instead of slitting our throats. THQ is an example of that.

Migrating Used game sales to New by 1% more than covers this revenue seen in the first week of charging for D1DLC. Offering a game with lots of engaging content fights Used game sales as well. As does other features, such as a toolkit. In fact, Bioware devs on these forums have reiterated time and again that a feature such as a toolkit keeps gamers playing your game well past the first week and, therefore, makes DLC sold later more likely to sell.

And, let's not forget... quality is a big portion of the conversation none of us are conversating about. Citadel, which is full of nothing by fan-service and connections to the current and former companions - something fans said they desperately missed and wanted. It was the last DLC to be released (nearly Year One DLC), but it was still highly critically rated and was talked about widely by many fans. We have no direct sales numbers, but it seemed to do well enough despite not being released in the "hot spot" of the game's release date.

I'm not saying all DLC should be like Citadel (fan service can only toe the line so much before it becomes shameless), but it goes to show that it you give fans what they say they actually want, they will ACTUALLY come out and buy it, maybe even say a nice thing or two about it. Whereas Omega, which fans said were afraid would be nothing but a shoot-shoot-bang-bang "kill the evil Cereberus bad guys like you have 80% of the game" were disappointed when it was exactly that, resulting in tepid reviews and fan reception.

So it shows you can give something fans want (free or charged) that doesn't need to directly tie in to the main plot or story and it can still be satisfying. Similarly, you can have a piece of DLC that has you taking down a main asset for one of the game's main enemies, Cereberus (which was bad planning in and of itself, BTW), and still have it be received as "meh."

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 août 2013 - 06:31 .

[DaGhostDS]

caradoc2000 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

AutumnWitch wrote...

What was the Day One DLC for DA2? (I only discovered DA less than 2 years ago.)

Sebastian's DLC and The Black Emporium were both released on the same day that the base game was.

And both were free (without additional cost) with the signature edition.

Which was awesome i might say, free soundtrack and free DLC.

That game might not have been top of the top from Bioware, but at least it had stuff in the box bonus.

[Fast Jimmy]

MerinTB wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Day One DLC =  The Bad.
/discussion ended.
:innocent:

Your math is undeniable.

I figured, in this case, less was more.

I've never been able to learn that lesson. 

[Thandal N'Lyman]

I'm fine with paid D1DLC that doesn't meaningfully impact the base game (think "Exiled Prince", or "From Ashes".) People who want the additional content are free to buy it. No one has to.

But I have a problem with D1DLC that actually changes the player's experience within the main game (think "The Black Emporium - Mirror of Transformation".) That's the kind of thing that, if it were ready on D1, should obviously be in the base game or distributed free of charge.

[Fast Jimmy]

Thandal NLyman wrote...

I'm fine with paid D1DLC that doesn't meaningfully impact the base game (think "Exiled Prince", or "From Ashes".) People who want the additional content are free to buy it. No one has to.

But I have a problem with D1DLC that actually changes the player's experience within the main game (think "The Black Emporium - Mirror of Transformation".) That's the kind of thing that, if it were ready on D1, should obviously be in the base game or distributed free of charge.

I agree with this a lot. The Emporium allowed appearance changes, stat resets and the mabari companion/ability (not to mention some rather decent equipment). That's worth more to me than Sebastian. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 août 2013 - 07:55 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Peter Moore said that 40% attachment rate I quoted was for all of Week 1. We can assume a large amount of those were true Day One, but even if the full amount was lost during that first with a Week 2 DLC launch, that would only be 40% of the 1 million+ units of ME3 moved during the first week, equalling roughly 400,000 to 500,000 units, since we don't know the details of that "+" as well as Peter Moore.

How about increase in collectors edition 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 think this is the problem.

You can't imagine it being so, therefore it can't be. And with that it becomes a hell of a conversation non-starter, because if you can't imagine it being so, you'll continue to drag up hypotheticals like how much Martin and Sheen and Seth Green won't want to be a part of us going forward (sorry, I discount this one as being wholly implausible).

Suggested reading, however: The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science.

You're clearly a smart guy Jimmy, but it's interesting that the smarter people tend to be better capable of rationalizing reasons to prevent cognitive dissonance. And it's interesting because your innate response upon reading this article will be that I am doing the same (which I may very well be - I'll openly admit I have literally done this in other interactions in my entire time online, or even with friends, and not just because of playing Devil's Advocate but because I was obstinate and didn't want to concede I could be wrong).

I can, however, acknowledge that Day One DLCs may not be the best thing for BioWare/EA going forward, as I don't have perfect information. Is it possible that they may be, however?


Lets look at some problems with your earlier statements.

You compared the gross of the whole project to the gross of the DLC, while failing to account for the difference in markup. You know better than this, but we also both know that the greater you can separate the values, the more convincing the argument appears. You've since even compared it against *the entire trilogy* worth of sales, which just starts to come across as rather silly.

A breakdown:
A million units in first week, at $60.

At 10% profit, the DLC represents 67% of the profit of the base game at that time.
At 20% profit, the DLC represents 33% of the profit of the base game at that time.
At 30% profit, the DLC represents 22%...
At 40% profit, the DLC represents 17%.
At 50% profit, the DLC represents 13%.
And so on.

Now, can you imagine that a 13% - 67% increase in the numbers that affect the bottom line may be perceived as a good thing? Or is that still just not possible?


Factors overlooked:
Collectors edition purchases. How many people bought collectors editions that would not have? Rather than asking "Do you think it is significant" (because I know the answer to that), I'll ask "Do you think it could be significant."

Getting the same amount of money sooner is always better than getting the same amount of money later. It is *trivial* to see this across gaming (and the market in general), as stuff like Day One DLC for *free* with a preorder is very, very, VERY common. I actually preorder more now (although still infrequently) than I did when preordering was necessary to ensure a copy, because I literally get more value for my money by doing so. If I expect to buy a game at release (i.e. EU4, Rome 2, and possibly Saints Row 4), and it has a preorder incentive, I usually preorder it. This gives them less overall on the bottom line, but gives them the money sooner. There are a lot of advantages for providing a preorder incentive, even if it means "giving stuff away." It's one thing to say that From Ashes is bad long term, which is a position I can certainly see. But in the short term, it's pretty clear that many businesses would rather take less money that is guaranteed sooner, rather than wait and possibly make more money.

Press: How true is the old adage "there's no such thing as bad press?" (I actually don't know, but I know some believe it). This may apply more to the ending itself than the DLC, but there are large articles about the DLC. Yes, maybe Erik Kain's article whipped people into a furor and maybe even contributed to less sales. How many people did it go "I wonder what the big deal is" or for some ended up being "Oh man there's some extra content already available?" because they didn't actually know about it. Is it possible that despite the outrage, it may have been mitigated enough by the exposure?


The problems with "arguing to win:" You refuse to point out potential benefits, nor concede that your hypotheticals may not only be incorrect - but could even be opposite.. You either come across as not knowing about those potential benefits, or give the impression of intentionally withholding them. Neither of these strengthen the perception of your argument, especially when you use such strong statements as how you can imagine how it's better.

Saying you can't imagine it gives the perception that you're being myopic in your focus and possibly just being unreasonable.
Saying you think it's not the best thing for the company going forward, however, would actually put you in alignment with my own feelings.


Which perception of you would you like me to have as reality? How does my perception of you and your arguments change based on prior interactions with you, and how will those perceptions alter how much I read into your future posts? You'll have to weight the advantages of whether or not it's worth it.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 août 2013 - 09:00 .

[devSin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Getting the same amount of money sooner is always better than getting the same amount of money later. It is *trivial* to see this across gaming (and the market in general), as stuff like Day One DLC for *free* with a preorder is very, very, VERY common. I actually preorder more now (although still infrequently) than I did when preordering was necessary to ensure a copy, because I literally get more value for my money by doing so. If I expect to buy a game at release (i.e. EU4, Rome 2, and possibly Saints Row 4), and it has a preorder incentive, I usually preorder it. This gives them less overall on the bottom line, but gives them the money sooner. There are a lot of advantages for providing a preorder incentive, even if it means "giving stuff away." It's one thing to say that From Ashes is bad long term, which is a position I can certainly see. But in the short term, it's pretty clear that many businesses would rather take less guaranteed money sooner, rather than wait and possibly make more money.

I don't think it's particularly useful to conflate promotional offers (which help with marketing and retailer kickbacks) or first-sale offers (which incentivize retail purchases, as opposed to rentals or used purchases), and Day One DLC, which is what is being discussed here.

I loathe promotional items like nothing else (Mark did the right thing in finally liberating them all for Origins and DA2, bless him), but I acknowledge the purpose and efficacy (and hey, it's free crap, so what are you going to do). That doesn't have much to do with content developed in tandem and set aside for purchase on the very first day simply to improve salability, however.

Modifié par devSin, 01 août 2013 - 09:03 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't think it's particularly useful to conflate promotional or first-sale offers (which incentivize retail purchases, as opposed to rentals or used purchases), and Day One DLC, which is what is being discussed here.

When discussing whether or not it's "worth it" to get the money sooner, which is the point Jimmy was putting forth, I disagree.  Jimmy is arguing that the money from the DLC in the first week isn't worth it, because it just isn't significant, and ultimately hurts our bottom line.  As he now advocates for Week 2/3 DLC, he obviously feels that the money made specifically in the first week's window doesn't make up the difference.

And if promotional and first-sale offers were exclusively to incentivize retail purchases, they wouldn't be so common on PC only games which neither have a rental nor used market. Two games I listed, EU4 and Rome 2, are PC only games with Steam integration. These promotions are offered because it gets them money sooner, and the belief that guaranteeing that revenue is worth more than what they would get if they didn't offer that.


As such, it could be seen as there being a greater guarantee of getting the revenue if the Day One DLC is released earlier (a position I'd support, since attach rates are inversely correlated with time after release), the only way Week 2/3 DLC would be superior is if it lead to ostensibly increased sales later, to make up for the fact that the money was received later.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 août 2013 - 09:08 .

[devSin]

I guess it depends on the promotional offer (you caught me mid-edit, where I tried to clarify a bit what I was saying).

My thought is that the vanity promotional system exists as basically a form of kickback—provide an "exclusive" for a retailer, which causes the retailer to more heavily advertise your product (since they can directly advertise the exclusive as well). It's there to drive revenue, you're correct, but only because you essentially get the services of expanded marketing for free (it's a largely costless way to get other people to push your goods). This is how we get all these awful promotional items, more and more of them each year. (And it happens prior to release because that's really the only time anybody is going to be interested in featuring your product.)

I still believe first-sale has its roots in incentivizing retail purchases (I've never seen it claimed otherwise), though EA claims to no longer do it, so I'm not sure how that factors into your argument.

Getting the money "sooner" is eminently important, though; I didn't intend to contest that point. Doesn't your industry basically function these days on preorder and first week revenue? And regardless, I think the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Day One DLC sells like no other DLC; I'm not sure anyone on the outside could say whether the increased revenue would ever be offset by reduced business caused by a questionable (so it seems, at least on occasion) practice, but I personally doubt it.

Modifié par devSin, 01 août 2013 - 09:21 .