532 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
That "goes to the publisher" concept doesn't necessarily fly. Bioware is a division of EA, not a customer. Revenue that comes in is apportioned out according to that department, but it does not mean Bioware gets a check for the profits minus EA's cut that Aaron Flynn gets to divy up as he sees fit on raises, new tools and Canadian strippers.

I should have specified. I was treating EA/Bioware as a singular entity, so using Bioware and publisher interchangeably.  

Also, I'd like to see sources on the average gross price being $42 a unit.

That was using your figures, if we assume that 200,000,000$ is the ballmark amount that ME3 made in gross when we account for used sales, returns and sales. 

Also, assuming a 50% profit margin just off the cuff is not a solid move - pleAse show your math on where you draw that conclusion.  

It was entirely arbitrary as a figure - but so were yours, so I tried to track your figures. 

And, finally, one of the models I was advocating was DLC released just a few weeks after the game came out, not on the same day. Therefore, that's why I only looked at it through the snapshot of "how much did this make in the first week of so" since the argument against such a model by those on here was that "you'd miss way too much revenue in that first week or so" which does not appear to be the case.   

Yes, but you related that to the lifetime gross of the game and calculated a 280 million figure using a 60$ pricepoint for each unit sold, and then discounted that by 80 million, which would mean that (on average) that the game actually sold for $42/unit on average. 

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

Depending on how we set up our figures, day 1 DLC in week one might amount for up to 10% of the 10 Week Gross.  That wouldn't be just a tiny chunk.

But I don't think this point matters, because we still can't quantify the cost in terms of brand damage. Even Day 1 sales were a significant portion of the gross, Day 1 DLC might reduce your gross (via negative fan reaction) by more than it adds to it (via the margins). 

[MerinTB]

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

:innocent:

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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. 

No no, I mean ALL the characters.

You make your PC, and then you start in a vast, empty field. A text box pops up.

"Build your game your way with our DLC modules!

Click here to go to the Digital Content Store now."

You follow the link and find your self staring at a massive list; hundreds of products. Every shopkeeper, every innkeeper, every prostitute, beggar, city guard, every enemy, sold individually.

You can buy them individually, or you can shell out thirty dollars for bundles. The Shopkeeper Bundle, The Prostitute Bundle.

You punch in your credit card number, and then you reload your game. The once-empty field is now swarming with NPCs. Another text box pops up.

"Keep an eye on the Digital Store for upcoming Building and Dialogue content packs!"

[Plaintiff]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

No no, I mean ALL the characters.

You make your PC, and then you start in a vast, empty field. A text box pops up.

"Build your game your way with our DLC modules!

Click here to go to the Digital Content Store now."

You follow the link and find your self staring at a massive list; hundreds of products. Every shopkeeper, every innkeeper, every prostitute, beggar, city guard, every enemy, sold individually.

You can buy them individually, or you can shell out thirty dollars for bundles. The Shopkeeper Bundle, The Prostitute Bundle.

You punch in your credit card number, and then you reload your game. The once-empty field is now swarming with NPCs. Another text box pops up.

"Keep an eye on the Digital Store for upcoming Building and Dialogue content packs!"

As long as they're not plot relevant, and the game costs twenty bucks...go for it!

Oh, there's no plot. You have to buy story packs for that.

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

No no, I mean ALL the characters.

You make your PC, and then you start in a vast, empty field. A text box pops up.

"Build your game your way with our DLC modules!

Click here[/b][/u] to go to the Digital Content Store now."

You follow the link and find your self staring at a massive list; hundreds of products. Every shopkeeper, every innkeeper, every prostitute, beggar, city guard, every enemy, sold individually.

You can buy them individually, or you can shell out thirty dollars for bundles. The Shopkeeper Bundle, The Prostitute Bundle.

You punch in your credit card number, and then you reload your game. The once-empty field is now swarming with NPCs. Another text box pops up.

"Keep an eye on the Digital Store for upcoming Building and Dialogue content packs!"

As long as they're not plot relevant, and the game costs twenty bucks...go for it!

Oh, there's no plot. You have to buy story packs for that.

If the modules were solid, the distribution instant/streaming and the base price not too high, it would be worth it. 

$60 for such a set up would be as close to a crime as possible. 
EDIT: I would be back behind it again if, and ONLY IF, romance modules for each individual character are available and sold separately from the character model themselves. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 août 2013 - 09:40 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Depending on how we set up our figures, day 1 DLC in week one might amount for up to 10% of the 10 Week Gross. That wouldn't be just a tiny chunk.

And again, it is assuming a 100% profit margin (or even direct revenue) from DLC. Which may be true for PC digital download (assuming no work outside the main development was needed, a tolhorny proposition) but it definitely would not be the case with console distribution.

But I don't think this point matters, because we still can't quantify the cost in terms of brand damage. Even Day 1 sales were a significant portion of the gross, Day 1 DLC might reduce your gross (via negative fan reaction) by more than it adds to it (via the margins).

And that's the crux of the issue. We can't know, but why risk it? Why hurt your overall revenue if it even runs the risk of not being balanced out?

[MerinTB]

A base game engine, with each part of the game being optional (as in, you have to buy it) is a HORRIBLE idea.

That it is even being considered in anything but A Modest Proposal kind of way is horrifying.

[ForceXev]

Oh man, this topic... it gets under my skin.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

"Perception is Realty" if perception is important to you.  Obviously "reality is reality," but if you are concerned about how your company and your product is perceived, than perception is more important than reality. 

What I would like to see is the game being sold for $70 straight up, with Javik's content, and to have seen the reaction there.

I think if the game was simply sold as a $70 game straight up, I would at least respect the straight-forwardness and honesty of that more than tack-on DLC, but of course there would be a lot of negative reactions and bad press for that, too.  "Bioware Charges A Premium for Latest RPG Title - $70!" says the headlines.  Bioware has essentially been charging extra for their last couple games, the pricetag has just been hidden behind so-called optional Day 1 DLC.

People have been willing to pay that premium price for Bioware games, but people have also been feeling burned by the most recent Bioware titles.  Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 have had more negative feedback than any Bioware games that came before them, going all the way back to KOTOR at least.  In fact, Dragon Age 3 is Bioware's rebound game after one of the largest waves of negative feedback I have ever seen for a game regarding ME3's ending.  I worry that if Dragon Age 3 is released with a fresh round of negative controversy about Day 1 DLC, it's going to get real ugly.  I worry that it might be the beginning of the end for Bioware.  I worry because I have been a fan of Bioware games for a long time, and I want to see it return to greatness, not continue down this sordid road of EA greediness that can't possibly lead anywhere good.  Most importantly, I worry that Bioware is NOT worried, because in the end only Bioware can save itself from being swallowed up by EA's business practices like so many great companies before it.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And again, it is assuming a 100% profit margin (or even direct revenue) from DLC. Which may be true for PC digital download (assuming no work outside the main development was needed, a tolhorny proposition) but it definitely would not be the case with console distribution.  

Not at all. Since we're relating gross to gross to begin with, we're not looking at profit. If we're calculating profit, then we need to subtract things like marketing expenses, development costs, etc. from the actual gross revenue that the game pulls in that goes to EA/Bioware, and as you didn't, I assume you were doing gross-to-gross. 

And that's the crux of the issue. We can't know, but why risk it? Why hurt your overall revenue if it even runs the risk of not being balanced out?

Don't look at me - I think the way most developers, and EA in particular, handle marketing their product is just embarassing. 

[ForceXev]

In Exile wrote...
Depending on how we set up our figures, day 1 DLC in week one might amount for up to 10% of the 10 Week Gross.  That wouldn't be just a tiny chunk.

But I don't think this point matters, because we still can't quantify the cost in terms of brand damage. Even Day 1 sales were a significant portion of the gross, Day 1 DLC might reduce your gross (via negative fan reaction) by more than it adds to it (via the margins). 

The whole idea of trying to "quantify the cost" of brand damage is ridiculous.  That's such an awful way to look at it. 

A good company would take a much simpler approach:  "Does this damage our brand?  Yes.  OK then we won't do it that way.  Let's find an alternative."  There was a time when Bioware would have looked at it this way, but obviously not anymore. 

Now it's clear that upsetting their customers is just something to factor in to their bottom line.  It's sad to see this happening to Bioware, but when they were bought by EA everyone knew it was going to happen.

[Fast Jimmy]

Don't look at me - I think the way most developers, and EA in particular, handle marketing their product is just embarassing. 

Can't say I don't disagree on that one. How they think that a multi-national, billion dollar industry can be marketed and handled as if they were selling comic book cards is baffling.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 août 2013 - 11:56 .

[Hurbster]

I just object when it's stuff that has been blatantly chopped out of the main game to make day 1 DLC.

[Mike_Neel]

I didn't mind Dragon Age 2s DLC methods but I really really disliked ME3s.

Both the Prothean and Reaper back stories were DLC. While not essential to Shepards story you'd be hardpressed to find a dedicated ME fan who would say they aren't essential to the complete ME experience.

With DAII you got Sebastian, back story about Hawkes dad, and Biowares love letter to Felicia Day. None of which would really be considered essential to the DA experience.

[Realmzmaster]

ForceXev wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Depending on how we set up our figures, day 1 DLC in week one might amount for up to 10% of the 10 Week Gross.  That wouldn't be just a tiny chunk.

But I don't think this point matters, because we still can't quantify the cost in terms of brand damage. Even Day 1 sales were a significant portion of the gross, Day 1 DLC might reduce your gross (via negative fan reaction) by more than it adds to it (via the margins). 

The whole idea of trying to "quantify the cost" of brand damage is ridiculous.  That's such an awful way to look at it. 

A good company would take a much simpler approach:  "Does this damage our brand?  Yes.  OK then we won't do it that way.  Let's find an alternative."  There was a time when Bioware would have looked at it this way, but obviously not anymore. 

Now it's clear that upsetting their customers is just something to factor in to their bottom line.  It's sad to see this happening to Bioware, but when they were bought by EA everyone knew it was going to happen.

You may think it is an awful way to look at it but accountants and businesses have been doing it for years. In fact goodwill as an intangible asset is found on almost all businesses balance sheet. There are several methods to calculate goodwill. Yes businesses quantify the cost. 
If the lost of goodwill is going to have little to no effect on the bottomline the business may risk the adverse reaction. This can also happen if the company is already vilified that further lost of goodwill is inconsequential. It simply does not greatly affect future sales or profits.

Companies engaged in fracking have lost a great deal of goodwill, but those companies have determine that the benefits and potential profits outweigh any loss of goodwill. The oil industry can get away with the loss of goodwill because they produce an essential product.

Now EA on the other hand produces a luxury item so EA can be affected by loss of goodwill more acutely, but only to a certain point because many gamersare still buying their products. Even those gamers who voted it the worst company in America are still buying their games.

The other companies in the Consumerist poll are to big to even care or dominate their market. EA is the only one that could be affect by this poll. Let's look at the other top four. BoA (Bank of America), BP, Ticketmaster and Comcast.  Three of the four are too big to care and the fourth one (Ticketmaster) dominates its market.

Yes, businesses do quantify goodwill.

[legbamel]

ForceXev wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Depending on how we set up our figures, day 1 DLC in week one might amount for up to 10% of the 10 Week Gross.  That wouldn't be just a tiny chunk.

But I don't think this point matters, because we still can't quantify the cost in terms of brand damage. Even Day 1 sales were a significant portion of the gross, Day 1 DLC might reduce your gross (via negative fan reaction) by more than it adds to it (via the margins).

The whole idea of trying to "quantify the cost" of brand damage is ridiculous.  That's such an awful way to look at it. 

A good company would take a much simpler approach:  "Does this damage our brand?  Yes.  OK then we won't do it that way.  Let's find an alternative."  There was a time when Bioware would have looked at it this way, but obviously not anymore. 

Now it's clear that upsetting their customers is just something to factor in to their bottom line.  It's sad to see this happening to Bioware, but when they were bought by EA everyone knew it was going to happen.

In an ideal world, being "not evil" is a wonderful, attainable goal.  In this one, particularly when your purse strings are held my a multi-national corporation that answers to greedy shareholders that don't give a fig beyond this quarter's reports and next quarter's projections, you may not have that luxury.

Also, you assume that it's upsetting a significant portion of their customers.  It doesn't upset me.  I consider it a price increase that they've managed to make more palatable to people.  I also consider it an excellent reason to preorder or buy new, if that price increase is removed by doing so.  You ascribe the reason to cold, corporate greed.  I ascribe it to their trying to walk a delicate line between their obligations to shareholders and customers.

[In Exile]

ForceXev wrote...
The whole idea of trying to "quantify the cost" of brand damage is ridiculous.  That's such an awful way to look at it.  

Not at all. If you can milk 50 people for more than you can get from 500 happy customers, it makes far more economic sense to exploit the 50. The only real questions are sustainability and growth. 

A good company would take a much simpler approach:  "Does this damage our brand?  Yes.  OK then we won't do it that way.  Let's find an alternative."  There was a time when Bioware would have looked at it this way, but obviously not anymore.  

People live in a magical fantasy land about what Bioware used to do. Seriously, was anyone even around for Jade Empire? Or NWN? Hell, even KoTOR, which had such an incredibly toxic environment about Bioware selling out to LucasArts to create a dumbed-down console game? 

[Sejborg]

Why is it that so many people are blaming EA for what Bioware is doing with it's DLC? EA isn't the one ordering Bioware to stop working on some companion, until after the game has gone gold and sell him as Day 1 DLC. That is entirely Bioware's decision.

Sure, EA is demanding some specific elements like an online service, an incentive for preordering, and stuff like that, but it is up entirely up to Bioware to decide how they will fulfill that demand. Bioware decides if it should be a companion and/or missions and/or weapons and/or armor they sell as day 1 DLC. I don't believe for a second that there is an EA agent walking the halls at Bioware keeping a keen eye on everything, and then deciding what should be DLC and what shouldn't.

Don't blame EA for what Bioware is deciding should be included in the main game, and what they decide should be missing and sold as Day 1 DLC. Blame Bioware for that.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sejborg wrote...

Why is it that so many people are blaming EA for what Bioware is doing with it's DLC? EA isn't the one ordering Bioware to stop working on some companion, until after the game has gone gold and sell him as Day 1 DLC. That is entirely Bioware's decision.

Sure, EA is demanding some specific elements like an online service, an incentive for preordering, and stuff like that, but it is up entirely up to Bioware to decide how they will fulfill that demand. Bioware decides if it should be a companion and/or missions and/or weapons and/or armor they sell as day 1 DLC. I don't believe for a second that there is an EA agent walking the halls at Bioware keeping a keen eye on everything, and then deciding what should be DLC and what shouldn't. 

Don't blame EA for what Bioware is deciding should be included in the main game, and what they decide should be missing and sold as Day 1 DLC. Blame Bioware for that.

I'd contest the exact opposite - it's not the decision of a Bioware employee... because there is no such thing, in all reality. Everyone at Bioware is an EA employee. Everyone who walks the halls is an EA agent of sorts. To assume that there some magical line, where on one side is all Bioware employees trying to do the best thing possible for gamers and an EA side that is entirely money driven is drivel. Everyone is a part of EA and there is no key position that is Bioware through and through, but who must answer to an evil EA corporate overlord. 

That's not the way corporations work. Bioware was acquired over five years ago now. They are as fully integrated as they come by this point. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 03 août 2013 - 07:26 .

[Sejborg]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Why is it that so many people are blaming EA for what Bioware is doing with it's DLC? EA isn't the one ordering Bioware to stop working on some companion, until after the game has gone gold and sell him as Day 1 DLC. That is entirely Bioware's decision.

Sure, EA is demanding some specific elements like an online service, an incentive for preordering, and stuff like that, but it is up entirely up to Bioware to decide how they will fulfill that demand. Bioware decides if it should be a companion and/or missions and/or weapons and/or armor they sell as day 1 DLC. I don't believe for a second that there is an EA agent walking the halls at Bioware keeping a keen eye on everything, and then deciding what should be DLC and what shouldn't. 

Don't blame EA for what Bioware is deciding should be included in the main game, and what they decide should be missing and sold as Day 1 DLC. Blame Bioware for that.

I'd contest the exact opposite - it's not the decision of a Bioware employee... because there is no such thing, in all reality. Everyone at Bioware is an EA employee. Everyone who walks the halls is an EA agent of sorts. To assume that there some magical line, where on one side is all Bioware employees trying to do the best thing possible for gamers and an EA side that is entirely money driven is drivel. Everyone is a part of EA and there is no key position that is Bioware through and through, but who must answer to an evil EA corporate overlord. 

That's not the way corporations work. Bioware was acquired over five years ago now. They are as fully integrated as they come by this point. 

Bioware still have autonomi under EA. Or rather the creative director(s) at Bioware still have autonomi over their own game. It is kinda like Pixar under Disney I reckon. Bioware is making the decisions for their own games. They - or rather Laidlaw (I think he is the one in charge for the Dragon Age team) decide what content should be missing day 1.

To disregard that there is still anything called Bioware, and saying that Bioware might as well just be named EA would be a false simplification. 

Blaming EA instead of Bioware is like blaming Warner Brothers instead of Cristopher Nolan because you didn't like The Dark Knight Rises. It's pretty weird to be honest. 

Modifié par Sejborg, 03 août 2013 - 08:37 .

[David7204]

Gosh, what a totally non-biased way to put it. BioWare 'decides' what content 'should be missing' on day one. I like the very stupid implication that anyone who purchases the game is 'owed' whatever content comes on DLC but had it stolen away from them by greedy executives.