532 réponses à ce sujet

[Fugiz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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. 

Its not free. You pay extra for those editions after all.

[Maria Caliban]

For those who don't remember, the Signature Edition of DA II did not cost more than the regular edition. You had to pre-order it before January 5th and you got an automatic upgrade.

After that, the Black Emporium code shipped with all new copies of the game and the Sebastian DLC cost extra.

ShadowLordXII wrote...

Please, do not take a companion and related missions out of the core product to put them into a seperate DLC pack that's released right alongside the main game.  Make up whatever excuse that you want, if the resources are completed at the same time as the game, it should be included in the game.

That's not going to happen. They're going to design day-one DLC and it will be content that's more interesting than 'item pack.' Most likely, it will be a companion with quests.

It might not be finished by the time the entire game goes out for certification, but if they develop it at the same time, people will find bits of it in the main game, which they will use as elements of cut content.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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...

You're assuming that a breathtaking, astonishingly good game won't have people complaining about things.

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).

Perception is reality.

EA perceives more money in its bank account when DLC comes out on day one.

The game industry perceives that people who complain about day-one DLC still go on to buy the next game when it comes out.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 juillet 2013 - 01:50 .

[Joy Divison]

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

While I appreciate the reference, it does not substantiate your claim of DLC selling "exponentially worse," it merely tells me that DLC sales are low (which I am not surprised at seeing that I don't like paying for the same thing multiple times) and does *not* prove that earlier DLC will sell better (to say nothing of addressing a potential consumer backlash.  You seem to enjoy the Melo business model and shelling out more money on release day for the stuff that didn't come with the game, but as this thread points out, other do not). 

As numerous posters have pointed out the flaws in your assumptions, I see no reason to repeat what already has been said.

[Fast Jimmy]

EA perceives more money in its bank account when DLC comes out on day one.

The game industry perceives that people who complain about day-one DLC still go on to buy the next game when it comes out.

EA perceives being nominated the Worst Company in America by consumers for years in a row. EA perceives never shaking their "Evil Empire" monicker in the gaming industry. EA perceives franchises that were guaranteed money makers like Madden, Modern Warfare and FIFA to be decried for serious lack of quality and value by even its most ardent followers.

I'm glad to see we all are able to perceive things.

[ShadowLordXII]

Maria Caliban wrote...

For those who don't remember, the Signature Edition of DA II did not cost more than the regular edition. You had to pre-order it before January 5th and you got an automatic upgrade.

After that, the Black Emporium code shipped with all new copies of the game and the Sebastian DLC cost extra.

ShadowLordXII wrote...

Please, do not take a companion and related missions out of the core product to put them into a seperate DLC pack that's released right alongside the main game.  Make up whatever excuse that you want, if the resources are completed at the same time as the game, it should be included in the game.

That's not going to happen. They're going to design day-one DLC and it will be content that's more interesting than 'item pack.' Most likely, it will be a companion with quests.

It might not be finished by the time the entire game goes out for certification, but if they develop it at the same time, people will find bits of it in the main game, which they will use as elements of cut content.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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...

You're assuming that a breathtaking, astonishingly good game won't have people complaining about things.

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).

Perception is reality.

EA perceives more money in its bank account when DLC comes out on day one.

The game industry perceives that people who complain about day-one DLC still go on to buy the next game when it comes out.

Not when content that's clearly meant to be on the main disk is cheaply ripped from core resources and placed into it's own dlc pack.

Remember when someone was banned for giving out info on how to hack ME3 and access the workable and playable Javik model that was on the main disk? That makes it sound like BW is charging players to buy something that they've essentially already paid for.  If it's on the disk, then they should have access to it. Period. The excuse of "placeholders" and the "certification process" thing don't seem convincing at all in light of the ban.

How is hacking a game that you bought with your own money piracy when you own the thing that your hacking?
Does that mean that if I want to open up the computer that I bought with my own money and assembled with my hands to upgrade a part or work on the CPU...I'm stealing? From who? Myself? The people who made the parts for the computer? I already bought those parts in a legal and lawful fashion.

It looks like a blatantly desperate ploy to hide a dishonest practice.

Anyone remember the Capcom vs Tekken fiasco? You know where they advertised a bunch of additonal characters on the PS Vita that included Blanka, Mega Man and f@#$ing Pac-Man. Then it turned out that all of those characters were actually disklocked on the console versions. Some weren't complete, but several were fully workable and playable via hacking.

Sound familiar?

That's my biggest hiccup about Day One-DLC. Not just that it was shoved to the side during development and then somehow managed to be available on release as DLC...but that there's clear evidence that it was developed within the main core of the game and then moved over to DLC as a way of squeezing more money out of their customers.

I don't care if it's profitable, it's dishonest.  Not only is it dishonest, players/customers are more wary of it and they'll be paying attention.  Maybe I'm talking to a brick wall at this point in regards to BW and to those who believe that I'm a naive "self-entitled" whiner.

But I'm just calling it as I see it folks, nothing more.

[keightdee]

 I'm into the idea of Day 1 companion DLC with that caveat that it be fully implemented. I enjoyed Sebastian and Shale and their quests immensely; I can't really imagine playing the game without them. That said, there were a number of quests I brought Sebastian along on expecting he'd definitely have something to say about the situations and he ... didn't. It was weird. I'd always chalked that up to DA2 limited development time. :shrug:
I sent Gaider a message on Tumblr about the question of DLC characters a few months ago and this is what he said:

"I think I like the way Shale was done a bit better, insofar as she was available to anyone who purchased the game new, but that’s mainly because I want as many people to see our work on the characters as possible. I’m personally fine with DLC— new characters or no— being available to those who’d like more for a game they already enjoy. They’re hardly expensive, after all."

I've bolded the part I think is particularly relevant here.

[RepHope]

If there is Day 1 DLC it should be free for those who purchase the game new, that seems like a fair compromise to me. None of this Disc Licked Content that you pay for bs EA loves.

[Realmzmaster]

Buying Day1 dlc is a choice. Neither the Exiled Prince nor the Stone prisoner were necessary to complete the game. In fact I completed DAO in my first playthrough without activating the Stone Prisoner. I got completed the game. If activated the Stone Prisoner on my second playthrough. What I got was a nice new companion and some quests that basically did not add any new insight to the game. The same with the Exiled Prince.

I made my first playthrough without the Exiled Prince. I waited until my second playthrough to activate it. I could tell immediately that the exiled Prince did not mess as well in the game. I could also tell that the Exiled Prince reused maps from DA2 with a new skin which was later verified by Mike Laidlaw. Bioware could not get to work well in the main game so Sebestian and his quests were cut to be re-worked. Why was it cut, so that the game could go gold and into production. During the time from going gold to release the Exiled Prince was worked on. So it got released as Day one dlc.

As far as ME3 I do not know. I only know that a friend of mine played it with and without Jarvik and told me he did not see what was all the fuss overit. He did not see Jarvik as adding anything that could not be ascertain from the game without Jarvik.

If I can play the game to completion then the game as issued is complete. I do not remember anyone saying they could not complete ME3 without Jarvik.

Day one dlc is a choice. The consumer can buy it or not.

[Maria Caliban]

The funny thing is at the end of ME 1, there's a huge reveal that the Protheans aren't important at all. Everything attributed to them is Reaper tech and they're just one of hundreds of civilizations that have fallen to the Reapers.

Then ME 2 is just 'and here is how the Reapers spit on their grave.'

Then they suddenly become important again in ME 3 because the plot requires a giant, nonsensical McGuffin.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 juillet 2013 - 06:03 .

[Jonathan Seagull]

Realmzmaster speaks the truth here. I can only speak for myself in this regard, but I've played all the games with and without the DLC characters. I didn't get Shale until my third DAO run*; Sebastian until my second DA2 run. I used Kasumi immediately in ME2 but waited until the third go for Zaeed. With Javik, I decided to get him on my first run (because I thought he sounded particularly interesting), but held off on recruiting him until near the end of the game. A couple months ago I finished a Javik-less run of the game.

In all cases, I felt that the games are perfectly complete without these characters. Javik is arguably the most relevant, but he still isn't necessary. He doesn't alter any of the other plot points, he doesn't give any information critical to completing a mission. The only thing he does is the same thing every other companion does, which is provide insight into his culture and his own beliefs. Whether or not he was designed from the ground up to be DLC or not, he's 100% optional. In terms of timelines I'll say this: if people choose to believe that the devs are all lying about the development process, then there really isn't much meaningful discussion that can be had.

*Shale was a strange thing for me. If you'll recall, the redemption code to activate him for free was originally valid through April 30th, 2010. I quite literally purchased DAO on May 1st, 2010. I tried it anyway and of course it didn't work. I opted not to spend more money at that time and decided that I would buy him at some point in the future so I'd have a new character to use. Several months later, after I had started my third run, I tried the code again on a whim and it actually worked. Bam, have some Shale. However, as Plaintiff noted, there was definitely at least some period of time where even players who purchased new copies did not get Shale free.

[Ghaleon]

I'm going to be honest here and maybe some will say i am part of the problem but honestly i liked the day one dlc bioware has done in the past javik etc so i'd be absolutely fine if did so with DA:I, i buy all the DLC anyway.

[Fredward]

Part of me knows its wrong to charge people for something they already technically own, but the overwhelming part of me does not care. It's not a lot of money, you get "new" content AND you're making sure the devs don't starve.

[Fredward]

Ethics in business? Madness!

[Ziggeh]

Maria Caliban wrote...

It might not be finished by the time the entire game goes out for certification, but if they develop it at the same time, people will find bits of it in the main game, which they will use as elements of cut content. 

Certification. That's the word I was looking for.

The suggestion that it is on the disk and therefor should be available ignores elements of development. Content can be both complete and not ready.

[Fast Jimmy]

In terms of timelines I'll say this: if people choose to believe that the devs are all lying about the development process, then there really isn't much meaningful discussion that can be had.

Really? Even when how the developer described that process turned out to be false? Even when the Community Manager came back out months later expressing regret that they were coerced into misleading players about key aspects of a game at launch, including the nature of MP and DLC?

I'd say any discussion Bioware has that DOESN'T acknowledge that they were not as upfront and honest in the past as the could/should have been is not the beginning of any meaningful discussion. Luckily, Bioware to date has been open about their consumer trust issues leading up to DA:I. The fact that they are not discussing anything game related until they are 100% sure it will be in the game as presented is, to me, a good indicator that they will look at all areas of the game's release that draw fan criticism and mistrust, possibly even their D1DLC model.

[David7204]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Again, removing content from a game for the purpose of selling on as DLC is a loathsome practice. It's overtly anti-consumer, unprincipled, manifestly cynical and rude! What's to argue?

The fact that businesses have every right to sell their product as they see fit?

The fact that developers are not obligated to try and pack as much content as they can into a 60 buck product, and that doing so would likely result ultimately in less resources for developers and lower quality games?

The fact that 'removing content from a game' is so ambiguous to be almost a worthless definition? Does that mean the removal of totally complete, finished, high quality content? Does it mean the removal of ideas that were definitely workable and solid concepts but didn't make the cut, such as Omega? Does it mean the removal of any concept so much as mentioned or discussed by the developers?

Modifié par David7204, 27 juillet 2013 - 11:23 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Ziggeh wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

It might not be finished by the time the entire game goes out for certification, but if they develop it at the same time, people will find bits of it in the main game, which they will use as elements of cut content. 

Certification. That's the word I was looking for.

The suggestion that it is on the disk and therefor should be available ignores elements of development. Content can be both complete and not ready.
 

Then why include it on the disc, unless your goal is to finish it and charge more later?

And who is to say that the content could have not been finished before it was deemed DLC?

For instance, under a tight schedule, let's say you have five tasks to complete, but only have time for four. Finishin up a character is much more important than all your other tasks, like cleaning up Codes entries, but the character gets flagged for DLC, so their priority is dropped to the bottom. So what would have had time to be completed before going Gold is now relegated to being delayed, because people will pay extra money for extra companion DLC, but they won't for a revised/more accurate Codex (at least not in large droves). Can we really say that smaller things that would need to be fixed with a free patch might take precedence over completing something that you can charge for completinglater?

[David7204]

Is there a single shred of evidence that Javik IN HIS CURRENT FORM was removed from ME 3 to be sold as DLC?

Modifié par David7204, 27 juillet 2013 - 11:24 .

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In terms of timelines I'll say this: if people choose to believe that the devs are all lying about the development process, then there really isn't much meaningful discussion that can be had.

Really? Even when how the developer described that process turned out to be false? Even when the Community Manager came back out months later expressing regret that they were coerced into misleading players about key aspects of a game at launch, including the nature of MP and DLC?

Source requested.

As far as I know, BioWare said 1) From Ashes was created by a separate team, and 2) it wasn't finished until after the game was in certification.

That parts of From Ashes is on the disk doesn't contradict either of those statements.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 juillet 2013 - 11:31 .

[David7204]

There have been conflicting posts by BioWare staff on the BSN whether the multiplayer issue was a bug or not.

Modifié par David7204, 27 juillet 2013 - 11:27 .