532 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

I find this conversation actually very fascinating, but it is quickly becoming "how much money did EA/Bioware make on ME3" which is both impossible for us to come close to nailing down as well as not the point of the original discussion.

Regardless of how much EA spends on marketing or what the split is between digital distribution versus brick and mortar... the revenue seen by D1DLC during its first few weeks does not seem overwhelming. If said DLC was delayed a few weeks and assuming ALL of the sales were lost (again, a ludicrous suggestion - while not all of those who bought Day One may hang around for Week 2, 3 or 4, assuming a 100% loss rate of NONE of them waiting is silly), this still is a rather tiny chunk of money, regardless of the costs and splits between one medium versus another.

With this in mind, is this smaller revenue worth the negative fan relations? I'd contest it isn't, but I suppose I'll keep an open mind how a few million extra dollars (in tiny proportion to the total amount of money involved) is worth the perception of some of your fans believing you have cheated them.

[Ziggeh]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

but I suppose I'll keep an open mind how a few million extra dollars (in tiny proportion to the total amount of money involved) is worth the perception of some of your fans believing you have cheated them.

Can you pay your bills with fans perceptions?

I totally get that it's short term thinking, but if you're asking investors, whose interest is only money, to choose between a definite, quantifiable short term gain and a potential, unmeasurable long term one I don't think they'd spend all that long doing maths.

[AlanC9]

Even if they wanted to do the math, how could they? There's no data. Which is the problem with the whole thread.

[Sjpelke]

Ziggeh wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

but I suppose I'll keep an open mind how a few million extra dollars (in tiny proportion to the total amount of money involved) is worth the perception of some of your fans believing you have cheated them.

Can you pay your bills with fans perceptions?

I totally get that it's short term thinking, but if you're asking investors, whose interest is only money, to choose between a definite, quantifiable short term gain and a potential, unmeasurable long term one I don't think they'd spend all that long doing maths.

Not to sure about that. If it concerns a long term franchise like DA things like that would be taken in consideration if they want it to be successfull in the long term.

[MerinTB]

AlanC9 wrote...
Even if they wanted to do the math, how could they? There's no data. Which is the problem with the whole thread.

It's not a problem with the whole thread, just a problem for ANYONE trying to rationalize that DLC is good or bad based on profits made or lost.

The simple math is Day One DLC = The Bad.

But you are right, people are wasting their time pulling arbitrary (no matter how good their educated guesses may be, they are GUESSES, using as a best resource company-fed reports on success of products (they have to exaggerate - they have stock-holders) and vgchartz (which, while the only real resource you usually have in these discussions, doesn't contain nearly enough data, nor enough sources of data, to be very useful) sales numbers, profit margins, etc., out of their posteriors.

So I'll add a new equation:

Pulling sales ratios out of your nether-region = The waste of time.

Modifié par MerinTB, 02 août 2013 - 05:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Ziggeh wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

but I suppose I'll keep an open mind how a few million extra dollars (in tiny proportion to the total amount of money involved) is worth the perception of some of your fans believing you have cheated them.

Can you pay your bills with fans perceptions?

I totally get that it's short term thinking, but if you're asking investors, whose interest is only money, to choose between a definite, quantifiable short term gain and a potential, unmeasurable long term one I don't think they'd spend all that long doing maths.

That's a fair enough response, I suppose. But then does that lend credence to complaints that EA/Bioware (or any developer that uses these models), are more concerned with making money than fans? I don't personally think it is a totally fair mindset to have, but in the perception battlefront, what counter could there be to these arguments if there is that kernel of truth?

[Ziggeh]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
That's a fair enough response, I suppose. But then does that lend credence to complaints that EA/Bioware (or any developer that uses these models), are more concerned with making money than fans?

I'm not sure it's realistic to consider them as cohesive entities. If the head of EA announces that it's releasing the flying monkeys to suck money directly from it's customers, it doesn't follow that Mike Laidlaw wanted to mug you. For example.

That said, this is assuming that they believe their will be a negative perception. From their perspective it may seem like a pretty sweet deal for the consumer. More content that we couldn't fit into the normal budget? It's optional, so why would they complain? Because we don't share their perspective.

[Ziggeh]

TsadeeHekate wrote...

Not to sure about that. If it concerns a long term franchise like DA things like that would be taken in consideration if they want it to be successfull in the long term.

EA strikes me as the "chase quarterlies" type. I get that long term strategy would appear to be the most sensible, but very few large businesses think that way. Stock prices rise and fall on short term gain.

[LinksOcarina]

MerinTB wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Even if they wanted to do the math, how could they? There's no data. Which is the problem with the whole thread.

The simple math is Day One DLC = The Bad.

Nothing is ever that simple unless you made up your mind already. In which case there is no reason to really say anything is there? 

[MerinTB]

LinksOcarina wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Even if they wanted to do the math, how could they? There's no data. Which is the problem with the whole thread.

The simple math is Day One DLC = The Bad.

Nothing is ever that simple unless you made up your mind already. In which case there is no reason to really say anything is there? 

The Bad = Subjective description of something.

Merin saying  "Day One DLC = The Bad" = Him giving his subjective opinion

Calling said equations "math" = Merin making a joke about all the math being thrown around.

Merin having to explain said joke to Investigative Reporter = The Sad

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wants to mug fans, semi-confirmed rumor!

Beat you, Jimmy.

Curses! 

I'm waiting for the Shui Ta Examiner article to talk about this tomorrow. 

Come on, Shui... we know you have to be a BSN forumite. Reveal yourself and we promise to only poke fun at you occassionally. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 août 2013 - 06:09 .

[addiction21]

MerinTB wrote...


The simple math is Day One DLC = The Bad.

I disagree. I suggest a clichéd dual at dawn to settle this. You have the choice of location and weapons.

[Fast Jimmy]

Ziggeh wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
That's a fair enough response, I suppose. But then does that lend credence to complaints that EA/Bioware (or any developer that uses these models), are more concerned with making money than fans?

I'm not sure it's realistic to consider them as cohesive entities. If the head of EA announces that it's releasing the flying monkeys to suck money directly from it's customers, it doesn't follow that Mike Laidlaw wanted to mug you. For example.

That said, this is assuming that they believe their will be a negative perception. From their perspective it may seem like a pretty sweet deal for the consumer. More content that we couldn't fit into the normal budget? It's optional, so why would they complain? Because we don't share their perspective.

I thought I'd give a serious response here... I don't mean to imply that Paid D1DLC is a plan made up Mark Darrah and Mike Laidlaw to buy themselves Porsches while they twirl evil mustaches or anything (maybe Aaron Flynn, though )... but there is a chain of people in the EA company where someone is either making that call or being part of those discussions and where Mike and Mark are links in said chain. Where even Blair and Allan are links.

To try and draw a clear line of where EA stops and Bioware begins doesn't accurately reflect the nature of how divisions within a parent company work.

In terms of the negative perception, if they didn't suspect it or anticipate it, I again question their Analytics. People don't like feeling like they are missing part of a story that was ready by release just because they didn't pay more.

[Ziggeh]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
To try and draw a clear line of where EA stops and Bioware begins doesn't accurately reflect the nature of how divisions within a parent company work.

Ah, yeah, I mean to say that both EA and Bioware are a set of individuals with a variety of disperate motives, not that EA/Bioware aren't the same thing - I was too busy getting to the line about monkeys.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
In terms of the negative perception, if they didn't suspect it or anticipate it, I again question their Analytics. People don't like feeling like they are missing part of a story that was ready by release just because they didn't pay more.

People are fairly poor at perspectives and hindsight is 20/20. One might think they would have taken on board comments from previous DLC based hoo-haas, but we'll literally complain about anything. How do they tell what is genuinely problematic and what amounts to "I don't want to pay for things I like" when it all sounds the same?

[Plaintiff]

I like DLC characters so much, I think all the characters should be DLC.

[Amirit]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

This is a bit off topic already but I still have to say it. It's exactly the type of response when fans begin to feel they are not taken seriously by developers.
The OP was asking about D1DLC and got in response - all DLC are mostly experiments, because we are not sure the stuff we put in there will be loved by customers and we do not want to lose them by placing it in the main game.

Really? Have you ever heard someone saying "I will never buy any BW game ever because there are too many companions in it!" Yet, Shale and Javik are D1DLCs. Or may be someone complained that there are too many interesting quests and side quests are huge, so they do not want to play BW games because of it? Yet your DLC often are exactly that - big interesting addition to the story. 

At the same time main game in DA2 is a one big experiment: different fighting, different skill system, half the amount of companions with "all bi" romance plot, small locations, no exploring, repetitive zones (caves and buildings) and so on. Did you really were 100% sure people will love all of those changes? I think everything I mentioned was the reasons for complains and threats to never buy BW games. But - again - this is all IN THE GAME, not in DLCs.


All I am trying to say here is - please, use another argument to justify D1DLC. This one questions your opinion about IQ level of your gamers.

P.S. Personally I do love DLCs if it is big compains (like Legacy). Something you really can play in addition to main game. But D1DLC companion totally incorporated in to the story yet sold separatly does look like a way to milk more money. I will buy (or pre-order) it but it will still leave a bad taste in mouth .

Modifié par Amirit, 02 août 2013 - 07:37 .

[LinksOcarina]

MerinTB wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Even if they wanted to do the math, how could they? There's no data. Which is the problem with the whole thread.

The simple math is Day One DLC = The Bad.

Nothing is ever that simple unless you made up your mind already. In which case there is no reason to really say anything is there? 

The Bad = Subjective description of something.

Merin saying  "Day One DLC = The Bad" = Him giving his subjective opinion

Calling said equations "math" = Merin making a joke about all the math being thrown around.

Merin having to explain said joke to Investigative Reporter = The Sad

Reporter not giving a damn about your forum sarcasm = likely. 

Chances you will be ignored = definitely. 

Have a nice day = please :happy:

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 02 août 2013 - 07:50 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

I like DLC characters so much, I think all the characters should be DLC.

I wouldn't be totally against this. At least, as long as they weren't sold as D1DLC and the overall product stood on its own two feet well. 

[LinksOcarina]

Amirit wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

This is a bit off topic already but I still have to say it. It's exactly the type of response when fans begin to feel they are not taken seriously by developers.
The OP was asking about D1DLC and got in response - all DLC are mostly experiments, because we are not sure the stuff we put in there will be loved by customers and we do not want to lose them by placing it in the main game.

Really? Have you ever heard someone saying "I will never buy any BW game ever because there are too many companions in it!" Yet, Shale and Javik are D1DLCs. Or may be someone complained that there are too many interesting quests and side quests are huge, so they do not want to play BW games because of it? Yet your DLC often are exactly that - big interesting addition to the story. 

At the same time main game in DA2 is a one big experiment: different fighting, different skill system, half the amount of companions with "all bi" romance plot, small locations, no exploring, repetitive zones (caves and buildings) and so on. Did you really were 100% sure people will love all of those changes? I think everything I mentioned was the reasons for complains and threats to never buy BW games. But - again - this is all IN THE GAME, not in DLCs.


All I am trying to say here is - please, use another argument to justify D1DLC. This one questions your opinion about IQ level of your gamers.

P.S. Personally I do love DLCs if it is big compains (like Legacy). Something you really can play in addition to main game. But D1DLC companion totally incorporated in to the story yet sold separatly does look like a way to milk more money. I will buy (or pre-order) it but it will still leave a bad taste in mouth .

I'm gonna have to say I agree with Allan in this case, at least in theory.

For one, the personal threshold for buying a DLC, be it day one or one hundred, is completely different for everyone.  I remember more complaints about the characters being cut from the main game, over there being too many characters (which in itself is a silly complaint since the sweet spot is around 10-12 anyway).

I think the better question to ask should not be "are there too many characters" but rather "are these necessary characters", which someone else pointed out that they are not.

In terms of that threshold, Allan is right. There is no way of knowing the reaction to a DLC until its announced or released, and seeing the impact through that. Before Javik was released it was a huge outcry. After...the majority seemed cool with it. Of course we had allegations and videos voicing displeasure but all of that aside, the controversy solved itself and were only reminded of it through a random topic on here every so often.

Now in practice, you are right it is hard to say something is a trial case, especially for a seasoned team. I don't see this as an excuse of any kind really, just a reality of the thought process; how do you actually gauge something being effective like this?

If it does fall to a case of "knowing your audience", then would it be fair to say that both BioWare, and the fanbase are at odds because neither of them are collaborating properly? Or is it something else that we simply can't answer? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 02 août 2013 - 07:51 .

[MerinTB]

addiction21 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
The simple math is Day One DLC = The Bad.

I disagree. I suggest a clichéd dual at dawn to settle this. You have the choice of location and weapons.

Duel accepted.

The Acropolis in Greece, and our weapon will be dialectic.

Winner is the one who admits, honestly, that his view has been changed by his interlocutor.

Time?

[MerinTB]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Chances you will be ignored = definitely. 

Have a nice day = please :happy:

If the former = true
then the later = true

....

I know my computer science degree would pay off at some point.... 

[LinksOcarina]

MerinTB wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Chances you will be ignored = definitely. 

Have a nice day = please :happy:

If the former = true
then the later = true

....

I know my computer science degree would pay off at some point.... 

When did computer science embrace the socratic method? 

Wait, I said I would ignore you....ah ****...time to back away slowly....

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 02 août 2013 - 08:25 .