532 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
That is the most naive thing I have ever heard.

More naive than blindly assuming I'm being cheated by anybody that tries to sell a product anywhere?

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.

I'm well aware that businesses prey on idiocy.

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.

I did not say any such business exists, nor do I expect them to take any such action. I expect consumers to educate themselves. If they want to continue to wallow in ignorance, then I'll let them.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 juillet 2013 - 09:06 .

[Plaintiff]

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

That's not how it works.

The developers approach the publisher (who funds them) and attempt to demonstrate that added feature xyz will generate more profit. If the publisher agrees with the assessment of the developers, they may furnish them with the funds to develop that feature.

"We want to do extra work and consume extra resources to add in content we already cut, and then provide that content at no extra cost to purchasers of the base game" is not a pitch that would thrill me, if I were a publisher.

The only benefit is that it might prompt some customers who buy used to buy new instead. But they don't get any extra money from the people buying new, and the people buying used chose to forego the content when they could get it for free, so they're not likely to pay extra to download it separately.

It's not a sustainable method of doing business at all, it's a goodwill gesture. Companies can afford to do that sort of thing on occasion, not as a matter of course.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 juillet 2013 - 09:17 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I did not say any such business exists, nor do I expect them to take any such action. I expect consumers to educate themselves. If they want to continue to wallow in ignorance, then I'll let them.

So your suggestion to Bioware is to hope their consumers are more educated and aware of business acumen - that Bioware makes no effort to disclose or give insight on unless fan outcry reaches certain levels (and then only to the smallest handful of those paying attention that given day) - than the average of not only the gaming industry, but all other markets... and that will suddenly improve their customer relations?

You can **** in one hand and have hopes like that in another... see which one needs cleaning first.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 juillet 2013 - 09:24 .

[Iakus]

Day 1 DLC is okay.

However, content DLC should be "Free with new purchase". It would then be an incentive to buy the game new rather than used without the appearance of "paying for cut content" sleaziness, deserved or not.

[Fast Jimmy]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
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.

I don't have a problem with it either if A) the original game itself remains high quality and the devs don't lie about it. I don't really see how being irritated about potentially being lied to makes someone a spoiled brat or an obnoxious hipster.  

Agreed. Given that Plantiff just called people who assume companies are out to rip them off naive, I don't see how he can then just also assume that people shouldn't be surprised when they are lied to by same said companies. 

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
So your suggestion to Bioware is to hope their consumers are more educated and aware of business acumen - that Bioware makes no effort to disclose or give insight on unless fan outcry reaches certain levels (and then only to the smallest handful of those paying attention that given day) - than the average of not only the gaming industry, but all other market... and that will suddenly improve gheir customer relations?

You can **** in one hand and have hopes like that in another... see which one needs cleaning first.

Actually, Bioware makes an effort to give insight into their company practices, and they release it through the appropriate channels, like articles from game journalism websites. Like, for example, the article I linked to in an earlier post.

Their reward is to be squawked at by idiots who are determined to stay idiots.

My advice to Bioware specifically would be to stop trying.

[Fast Jimmy]

The only benefit is that it might prompt some customers who buy used to buy new instead. But they don't get any extra money from the people buying new, and the people buying used chose to forego the content when they could get it for free, so they're not likely to pay extra to download it separately.

Also, this is wrong.

Companies don't get ANY money off of used game copies. Therefore, they get a LOT more (mathematically speaking, an infinite amount more) from new game sales over used ones. Hence the incentive to discourage the used game purchases by having the content not included. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 juillet 2013 - 09:27 .

[Ziggeh]

Plaintiff wrote...
That's not how it works.

The developers approach the publisher (who funds them) and attempt to demonstrate that added feature xyz will generate more profit. If the publisher agrees with the assessment of the developers, they may furnish them with the funds to develop that feature.

"We want to do extra work and consume extra resources to add in content we already cut, and then provide that content at no extra cost to purchasers of the base game" is not a pitch that would thrill me, if I were a publisher.

And that's reductive.

We don't know how their budget and resources are managed and allocation. Your assumptions, while not unreasonable in this instance, do not apply globally. You cannot say that this is the business model for all additional development and so your conclusion needs the caveat or it's false.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The only benefit is that it might prompt some customers who buy used to buy new instead. But they don't get any extra money from the people buying new, and the people buying used chose to forego the content when they could get it for free, so they're not likely to pay extra to download it separately.

Also, this is wrong.

Companies don't get ANY money off of used game copies. Therefore, they get a LOT more (mathematically speaking, an infinite amount more) from new game sales over used ones.

They don't get extra money from the people who already buy new, is what I obviously meant.

People who are in the habit of buying used games have already demonstrated repeatedly that they're okay with missing out on content, so bonus content is not a lure to them. The people that are lured will be a negligible amount, most likely.

[Plaintiff]

Ziggeh wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
That's not how it works.

The developers approach the publisher (who funds them) and attempt to demonstrate that added feature xyz will generate more profit. If the publisher agrees with the assessment of the developers, they may furnish them with the funds to develop that feature.

"We want to do extra work and consume extra resources to add in content we already cut, and then provide that content at no extra cost to purchasers of the base game" is not a pitch that would thrill me, if I were a publisher.

And that's reductive.

We don't know how their budget and resources are managed and allocation. Your assumptions, while not unreasonable in this instance, do not apply globally. You cannot say that this is the business model for all additional development and so your conclusion needs the caveat or it's false.

This instance is what I was talking about. A poster demanded to know why I don't believe Bioware can pull a Shale with every new game, and I gave them the answer.

[DarthLaxian]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Your avatar and that comment made for an awesome combo there.

I wonder if when DA:I comes out, what will happen here on the BSN if the game is breathtakingly, astonishingly good. Without people complaining about things, Plantiff would have nothing to nitpick and berate people on... and what kind of BSN would THAT be?

i would pay to see that...oh, wait, if i buy the game and it is that awesome (as i am into "nitpicking", too (at least people tend to call stuff i think is important, nitpicking <_<), i did pay for that

greetings LAX

[Ziggeh]

Plaintiff wrote...
This instance is what I was talking about. A poster demanded to know why I don't believe Bioware can pull a Shale with every new game, and I gave them the answer.

To avoid confusion you may not want to refer to specific instances as "anybody", but that's fair enough.

[Fast Jimmy]

They don't get extra money from the people who already buy new, is what I obviously meant.

People who are in the habit of buying used games have already demonstrated repeatedly that they're okay with missing out on content, so bonus content is not a lure to them. The people that are lured will be a negligible amount, most likely.

So... let me get this straight.

The unknown minority of people who buy a game new (and pay $60) who would not have paid anything into the developer's coffers otherwise are of less weight than the unknown minority of people who would buy a D1DLC which costs $10? Even when one model results in consumer goodwill and the other consumer spite?

I find that argument very non-compelling without hard numbers, which neither of us have.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 juillet 2013 - 09:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Joy Divison wrote...

DLC on day 1 reeks of money grubbing.

Only the most shallow analysis would conclude that day one DLC was some sort of scam.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 juillet 2013 - 09:56 .

[Mike 9987]

David7204 wrote...

This delusion that DLC should be high quality content but also completely optional and unrelated to the story needs to go.

High quality content becomes essential to the story.

No. Citadel was very high quality, but completely unrelated to the story. 

[Reofeir]

Eh, I'm fine with bioware's method of Day 1 dlc. As long as it isn't required or cause issues with main game (Not having a rouge that uses bows, game gives bows but no one in the game uses them. Only the Dlc guy can) then it's fine. Helps with preorder sales anyways and gives devs something to do.

[Fast Jimmy]

Actually, Bioware makes an effort to give insight into their company practices, and they release it through the appropriate channels, like articles from game journalism websites. Like, for example, the article I linked to in an earlier post.

Their reward is to be squawked at by idiots who are determined to stay idiots.

My advice to Bioware specifically would be to stop trying.

Do we have confirmed numbers on how many DLC were sold? Do we know the profit margins of both their respective base games or their DLC? Do we even have reliable numbers on the number of games sold? 

Do we have insight into the level of development that went into each D1DLC prior to going Gold? What about prior to actual release day? Do we know the cost of development for base game content, versus or in addition to DLC development? Do we know the timetables for console certification, disc manufacturing or Origin integration? Do we know the size regulations that various distribution models may have, or the costs/work involved in compressing these files (and decompressing them on the back end)?

No. We do not. On any of those. How then are we to become educated on if the practice, pricing, scheduling of such a model is price gouging, consumer deception or a value?

We have to believe the developer and what they are telling official channels like gaming journals (with no actual examples of real numbers or timelines to them, either, I might add) is true. And when a developer is found to be self-admitted as "untruthful" (I won't say lying), then it leaves the onus on the developer to either change their practice, reveal their numbers or deal with the bad press.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 juillet 2013 - 10:19 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Zenor wrote...

Eh, I'm fine with bioware's method of Day 1 dlc. As long as it isn't required or cause issues with main game (Not having a rouge that uses bows, game gives bows but no one in the game uses them. Only the Dlc guy can) then it's fine. Helps with preorder sales anyways and gives devs something to do.

You say you are fine with their method, then give a criteria that one of their games violates so... I'm kinda confused by your tactics. 

But I'm gonna keep acting tough 'till I figure them out!

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 juillet 2013 - 10:32 .

[Fugiz]

Sebastian and Dog were free with the Signature edition of DA2. But importantly both Sebastian and Javik are not important to enjoying the complete game.

The issue here is that Day 1 DLC will always feel like a ripoff even if it is extra content not cut from the game. DLC becomes criminal when you pay money for a 300kB download, a'la GoW3 or SF4. As long as it remains extra, optional and does diminish the main game in any way, I'm all for it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Fugiz wrote...

Sebastian and Dog were free with the Signature edition of DA2. But importantly both Sebastian and Javik are not important to enjoying the complete game.

The issue here is that Day 1 DLC will always feel like a ripoff even if it is extra content not cut from the game. DLC becomes criminal when you pay money for a 300kB download, a'la GoW3 or SF4. As long as it remains extra, optional and does diminish the main game in any way, I'm all for it.

I think there is a huge spike in gamers who buy the "Signature/Collector/N7/what-have-you" edition with the D1C bundled than who would buy such editions otherwise. I, personally, view at as not getting the DLC for free with said special editions, but pre-ordering the DLC without any idea of the base game's quality (nevermind the DLC itself) and being rewarded with the random clutter/paraphanelia that comes with it. 

But that may be splitting hairs.