532 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

DLC sells exponentially worse the later it is released. There's no sense in waiting just to accomodate delusion.

Making the case for Bioware again eh Plaintiff? Oh dear!

Is this supposed to be an insult?

"Your argument is different to mine, hurr durr. I don't have to expand on why that's amusing, which is good because I can't."

[Plaintiff]

Fandango9641 wrote...
Not an insult, just an observation. I'm sure you make Bioware very proud.

I doubt it. I've been banned before for being overzealous in my defense of aspects of their products that I enjoy.

In any case, my intention is not to defend Bioware, it's to candidly dispense commonsense.

I'll remind you that all I did was express an appreciation for Day 1 DLC that you felt a need to scrutinise. If you had not replied to me, which you did without any prompting, I would not likely have returned to the thread at all.

[Fast Jimmy]

DLC sells exponentially worse the later it is released. There's no sense in waiting just to accomodate rose-tinted delusions of how gaming "used to be".

There's plenty of sense in it.

Perception is reality. If consumers perceive they are being nickeled and dimed, then they are (even if they aren't). Because consumers will then treat you like they are nickel and diming them, they tell anyone who will listen about how you are nickel and diming them and you will need to respond to the critics and fans as if you were nickel and diming them... the perception becomes the reality in which you must work.

If, instead, by releasing the DLC a few weeks/a month later, you avoid this perception, even if it doesn't result in a drastically different development process. In which case, you then come out making money and looking better, instead of making an unknown (but one would have to assume small) amount of more money and dealing with tons of bad press.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 juillet 2013 - 05:28 .

[Ziggeh]

Joy Divison wrote...

wait a couple of months to to convey the illusion that I'm not buying stuff that 10 years ago would have been in the released product.

I don't know about 10 years ago, but certainly in the past it was less likely content like this would need to be authorised by third parties (ie console manufacturers) and such. Thus content can be in a state where it is complete, but not ready for release.

Which isn't to say I love paying for such things, but the argument that the only things that have changed are time and greed is false.

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

DLC sells exponentially worse the later it is released. There's no sense in waiting just to accomodate rose-tinted delusions of how gaming "used to be".

There's plenty of sense in it.

Perception is reality. If consumers perceive they are being nickeled and dimed, then they are (even if they aren't). Because consumers will then treat you like they are nickel and diming them, they tell anyone who will listen about how you are nickel and diming them and you will need to respond to the critics and fans as if you were nickel and diming them... the perception be ones the reality in which you must work.

If, instead, by releasing the DLC a few weeks/a month later, you avoid this perception, even if it doesn't result in a drastically different development process. In which case, you then come out making money and looking better, instead of making an unknown (but one would have to assume small) amount of more money and dealing with tons of bad press.

Knowing these boards it still wouldn't make a difference, people will still scream that its content cut from the game because it was released close to the launch of the game.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

These boards don't matter, though.

If you read a random article on Gamespot or Forbes Entertainment or Game Informer, you will see comments or editorials or responses that dog the D1DLC model. It isn't a BSN-specific complaint. It's certainly not a Bioware-specific complaint.

If Bioware were to change their policies slightly so they aren't easily lumped in with other D1DLC developers, it would do wonders. That others might still complain doesn't matter - the perception of them doing differently (even if it, in reality, isn't that much of a change) would do wonders.

[JCAP]

Sanunes wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

DLC sells exponentially worse the later it is released. There's no sense in waiting just to accomodate rose-tinted delusions of how gaming "used to be".

There's plenty of sense in it.

Perception is reality. If consumers perceive they are being nickeled and dimed, then they are (even if they aren't). Because consumers will then treat you like they are nickel and diming them, they tell anyone who will listen about how you are nickel and diming them and you will need to respond to the critics and fans as if you were nickel and diming them... the perception be ones the reality in which you must work.

If, instead, by releasing the DLC a few weeks/a month later, you avoid this perception, even if it doesn't result in a drastically different development process. In which case, you then come out making money and looking better, instead of making an unknown (but one would have to assume small) amount of more money and dealing with tons of bad press.

Knowing these boards it still wouldn't make a difference, people will still scream that its content cut from the game because it was released close to the launch of the game.

1 month after release is still better than day one dlc.

No one is fooled by day one dlc, we know very well it's content were made during development time and most of us think it should be in the core game (mass effect 3 was like selling you a car without air in the tires, air being the Javik dlc, the car moves but we don't have the same experience) .


A dlc released 1 month after is not seen as bad because we can think that they made it in 1 month or it was partially made during core game development time and completed in that month.


Every review I saw about mass effect 3 criticized the day one dlc.

Modifié par JCAP, 26 juillet 2013 - 05:34 .

[Fyurian2]

Plaintiff wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
Apologist drivel. If Javik was available as day 1 DLC he should have been part of the main game as first intended.

Like Shale was? Oh wait.

1: Shale was free with all new purchases of the game.

2: Shale was cut content from earlier in the development process.

3: The decision to move the game to cross platform instead of PC only, delayed the release of Dragon Age: Origins long enough that the team who were making the Day One DLC finished on what was initially their schedule for release (Soldiers Peak, the Drydens etc), and were then tasked with Stone Companion DLC because they had extra time to work on the game.

Stone Prisoner DLC is the best example of Day One DLC, and in my opinion set the standard for EA and Day One DLC (A standard which, sadly,  they have not since upheld).
Putting content back in the game that was cut during development, and doing it for free for all new purchases of the game.

ME3 + From Ashes is certainly the worst example of EA and Day One DLC.

[BouncyFrag]

I couldn't agree more. I didn't get Javic for ME3 until I'd already finished the game once and his content, especially on Thessia, was compelling and completely turned the ME universe on its head for me. Content like that getting ripped from the main game would be akin to taking Legion out of ME2. Paying $60 for a new game used to mean getting a complete game for that transaction.

[Plaintiff]

Fyurian2 wrote...
1: Shale was free with all new purchases of the game.

Not for me.

2: Shale was cut content from earlier in the development process.

Just like Javik, fancy that.

3: The decision to move the game to cross platform instead of PC only, delayed the release of Dragon Age: Origins long enough that the team who were making the Day One DLC finished on what was initially their schedule for release (Soldiers Peak, the Drydens etc), and were then tasked with Stone Companion DLC because they had extra time to work on the game.

All that little anecdote demonstrates is that Bioware's business practice of conceptualising Day 1 DLC well in advance of game release started prior to the release of Shale.

Soldier's Peak most likely also started as "cut content" that was reworked as a paid extra. Every idea of Bioware's that wound up in DLC probably originated as part of the hypothetical "base game", and many things were likely also cut that we never saw at all. It happens all the time, in every creative medium. It's called editting.

Putting content back in the game that was cut during development, and doing it for free for all new purchases of the game.

It should be blindingly obvious why this is not and would never be a sustainable method.

ME3 + From Ashes is certainly the worst example of EA and Day One DLC.

It's no different from every other piece of "post-Shale DLC", and if your little story about Soldier's Peak is accurate, it's also not any different from every other piece of "pre-Shale" DLC.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 juillet 2013 - 07:05 .

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Of course their will be a companion DLC.

I mean I don't like it but DAO, ME2, DA2 and ME3 all had one and I doubt they want to change the formula now.

[sandalisthemaker]

franciscoamell wrote...

Or maybe they could make the multiplayer feature DLC. Most players seem to not want that, may as well make it completely optional to even be there.

Sounds good to me.

[Joy Divison]

Plaintiff wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

I didn't spend a dime for Shale, Sebastien, or the Black Emporium.

DLC on day 1 reeks of money grubbing. Whether or not the gaming company intended to gouge its customers or not is irrelevant, it's just a bad optic.

DLC *should* enhance the story and provide elements/interesting characters/different loot that make the vanilla game pale in comparison, but you know, wait a couple of months to to convey the illusion that I'm not buying stuff that 10 years ago would have been in the released product.

Sebastian, like Javik, only came "free" with special editions of DA2, so you absolutely did pay for him.

DLC sells exponentially worse the later it is released. There's no sense in waiting just to accomodate rose-tinted delusions of how gaming "used to be".

Wrong.  I got Sebastian because I ordered DA2 before a certain date.  I paid the same DA2 price as release date.

And I'm sure you will be kind enough to provide me with something to substantiate that DLC "sells exponentially worse the later it is released" since I'm sure you aren't the type of poster to make up crap, right?

Modifié par Joy Divison, 26 juillet 2013 - 08:06 .

[Plaintiff]

Joy Divison wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

I didn't spend a dime for Shale, Sebastien, or the Black Emporium.

DLC on day 1 reeks of money grubbing. Whether or not the gaming company intended to gouge its customers or not is irrelevant, it's just a bad optic.

DLC *should* enhance the story and provide elements/interesting characters/different loot that make the vanilla game pale in comparison, but you know, wait a couple of months to to convey the illusion that I'm not buying stuff that 10 years ago would have been in the released product.

Sebastian, like Javik, only came "free" with special editions of DA2, so you absolutely did pay for him.

DLC sells exponentially worse the later it is released. There's no sense in waiting just to accomodate rose-tinted delusions of how gaming "used to be".

Wrong.  I got Sebastian because I ordered DA2 before a certain date.  I paid the same DA2 price as release date.

And I'm sure you will be kind enough to provide me with something to substantiate that DLC "sells exponentially worse the later it is released" since I'm sure you aren't the type of poster to make up crap, right?

The peak timeframe for sales of a new release game is in the first couple of weeks, after which they drop off sharply, as explained by Fernando Melo (Bioware's director of online devleopment) in this article.

If people aren't buying the game, then they aren't buying the DLC, simple as that. People that do buy the game will finish it (or most likely not), as it turns out, and lose interest when their attention is grabbed by a new release.

The article goes on to state that the release of DLC several months down the line does see a small spike in player activity, but in fact DLC sales are consistently low overall.

It follows that, in order to ensure the best sales possible sales for  DLC, developers need to take advantage of the hype of the new release of the base game, if not on day one, then in the following few weeks, while interest in the base game is high. In order to do that, DLC needs to be planned well in advance, and developed concurrently with the base game.

Why they follow a DLC model at all, instead of shifting the spare developers over to new titles entirely, in order to make more games faster, I can't say. Perhaps DLC is easier and less resource intensive.

[Fast Jimmy]

Why they follow a DLC model at all, instead of shifting the spare developers over to new titles entirely, in order to make more games faster, I can't say. Perhaps DLC is easier and less resource intensive.

It is a matter of risk sharing, if I had to take a guess.

They can make one DLC much more quickly and cheaply than a sequel. If it turns out the game is a big hit, the DLC usually does well and they can make more of it. If not, they don't lose that much money.

If they begin putting all effort into making a sequel or even a fu expansion, the game itself might not do well and not warrant either.

It essentially becomes a way to keep all teams as busy as possible after the game goes Gold but before production can really ramp up for extended service on the game (expansions and sequels). Conversely, they could pull everyone off the team and move to an entirely different IP/game, but that wouldn't be very useful to constantly hop from project to project to project, especial if the games develop a fan following and the success of a sequel/expansion is highly likely.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 juillet 2013 - 08:49 .

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

DLC sells exponentially worse the later it is released. There's no sense in waiting just to accomodate rose-tinted delusions of how gaming "used to be".

There's plenty of sense in it.

Perception is reality. If consumers perceive they are being nickeled and dimed, then they are (even if they aren't). Because consumers will then treat you like they are nickel and diming them, they tell anyone who will listen about how you are nickel and diming them and you will need to respond to the critics and fans as if you were nickel and diming them... the perception becomes the reality in which you must work.

If, instead, by releasing the DLC a few weeks/a month later, you avoid this perception, even if it doesn't result in a drastically different development process. In which case, you then come out making money and looking better, instead of making an unknown (but one would have to assume small) amount of more money and dealing with tons of bad press.

Consumers should instead become more rational, instead of expecting businesses to become slaves to their irrationality.

If you're going to wait, then there's no point releasing the DLC at all, because it won't sell. What actually happens then is that the whiny minority finds something else to whine about and developers still get treated like crap.

[Plaintiff]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Putting content back in the game that was cut during development, and doing it for free for all new purchases of the game.

It should be blindingly obvious why this is not and would never be a sustainable method.

Not to me. Pls explain.

Doing extra work for no added profit is not a sustainable method of business for anybody. How is this not immediatly apparent? Small children know this.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 juillet 2013 - 08:52 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Consumers should instead become more rational, instead of expecting businesses to become slaves to their irrationality.

That is the most naive thing I have ever heard.

Businesses who understand consumer irrationality often find there is a prevailing level of logic in it that makes sense, even if it is not factual.

If you show me a business who tries to educate its consumers on the realities  and financials of their respective industries, I'll show you a business about to be gutted by competitors who understand working to optimize and utilize consumer perception (even if it is wrong) is the best way to build brand loyalty and increase revenue.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 juillet 2013 - 08:53 .

[Plaintiff]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

I think the whole point he is making is that Shale legitimately was cut content the devs wanted in and were excited to get in despite their initial need to cut it.  It wasn't designed from the ground up to be DLC to make extra money.

Then he should've made it better. All he demonstrated to me is that Bioware was working on Day 1 DLC even before they made the decision to add Shale back into the game. Why is nobody pitching a fit over Soldier's Peak? It's content is exactly as vital to DA:O as extra characters are to any of Bioware's other games.

Many people (inclulding me) believe that Javik was designed from the ground up to be day one DLC to make extra money.

I'm absolutely certain that all of Bioware's DLC post and pre-Shale, Day 1 or otherwise, including Javik, was planned well in advance.

I don't have a problem with this, because I'm not a spoiled infant, or some obnoxious hipster out to rail against big business.

To put it extremely bluntly, I think most people think Bioware is lying when they say Javik was cut content they added back in later.  I think most people believe he was content developed alongside ME3 that Bioware specifically chose to exclude so they could charge for it on day one.

I'm sure they made the decision to provide Javik as DLC very early into ME3's development.

It is still highly possible that he was originally envisioned as part of the base game during the conceptual stages, but as anyone who knows anything about working in a creative medium is well aware, a million things happen between conception and execution. The devs have talked candidly on these forums in the past about ideas they had that never made it beyond the spitballing stage.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 juillet 2013 - 09:01 .

[Ziggeh]

Plaintiff wrote...

Doing extra work for no added profit is not a sustainable method of business for anybody. How is this not immediatly apparent? Small children know this.

By that logic, any element of the game could be considered additional. Adding any given element becomes unsustainable, rendering game production impossible. As we actually have games, this clearly isn't sound.