263 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Lebdood wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I feel like an expansion pack around one year after release is a good model. But that's probably just the grognard in me. 

I like expansion packs more than DLC, but they seem to be a dying breed.

It's probably a harder model for the developer, likely. Developers can begin working on DLC before the main game is even done, but creating an expansion is usually only greenlit after a game is released and successful. Otherwise, the expansion pack could be released and no one would buy it, resulitng in lost money. Meanwhile, DLC is often pretty popular and easy to sell really close to release. So it's a more enticing model, I'm sure. 

But it doesn't mean I don't like expacks more. 

[StElmo]

Il Divo wrote...

Lebdood wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I feel like an expansion pack around one year after release is a good model. But that's probably just the grognard in me. 

I like expansion packs more than DLC, but they seem to be a dying breed.

I'd prefer my content out faster myself.

I like bigger chunks of more expensive content, DLC is fine, but I prefer expansions.

Modifié par StElmo, 29 novembre 2013 - 01:58 .

[Il Divo]

StElmo wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Lebdood wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I feel like an expansion pack around one year after release is a good model. But that's probably just the grognard in me. 

I like expansion packs more than DLC, but they seem to be a dying breed.

I'd prefer my content out faster myself.

I like bigger chunks of more expensive content, DLC is fine, but I prefer expansions.

Sorry, should have been more clear. I'd like to be able to get expansions out within less than a year.

I realize that's likely never to happen (I'm looking at you Starcraft: Legacy of the Void), but if possible I do enjoy larger chunks of content, but would prefer to see them designed along with base game to see the content out faster.

[Fast Jimmy]

I suppose they could go the Assassin's Creed route, of coming out with a new release every year?

Then again, that might have been the goal of DA2, to see if that was possible. So... yeah.

[StElmo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I suppose they could go the Assassin's Creed route, of coming out with a new release every year?

Then again, that might have been the goal of DA2, to see if that was possible. So... yeah.

AC can only do it because Ubisoft have a very different model, their studios are always working on different AC games.

EA could do this with BioWare games, but not the same franchise every year. So KOTOR, ME and DA will rotate. Just a guess though

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Ugh I love Assassin's Creed but ubisoft needs to give that IP a rest.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I suppose they could go the Assassin's Creed route, of coming out with a new release every year?

Then again, that might have been the goal of DA2, to see if that was possible. So... yeah.

Hmm, fair point.

Even as someone who loved all the releases, I did notice less originality starting with Brotherhood.

I will say though that I think an expansion could get away with it a bit better since there will be less expectations for completely original mechanics. You're not designing a completely new engine/game system from the ground up as much as you are enhancing the old system.

[Lebanese Dude]

Il Divo wrote...

Sorry, should have been more clear. I'd like to be able to get expansions out within less than a year.

I realize that's likely never to happen (I'm looking at you Starcraft: Legacy of the Void), but if possible I do enjoy larger chunks of content, but would prefer to see them designed along with base game to see the content out faster.

One solution is to actually avoid buying the game til all the content is released. It's not like you're actually miss out on anything in the long run.

I did that with Mass Effect 3 because it was the end of the trilogy. It actually turned out to be a good thing. 

I'm a little too hyped to do that with DA:I though.

Modifié par Lebdood, 29 novembre 2013 - 02:27 .

[Il Divo]

Lebdood wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Sorry, should have been more clear. I'd like to be able to get expansions out within less than a year.

I realize that's likely never to happen (I'm looking at you Starcraft: Legacy of the Void), but if possible I do enjoy larger chunks of content, but would prefer to see them designed along with base game to see the content out faster.

One solution is to actually avoid buying the game til all the content is released. It's not like you're actually miss out on anything in the long run.

I did that with Mass Effect 3 because it was the end of the trilogy. It actually turned out to be a good thing. 

I'm a little too hyped to do that with DA:I though.

Could be a good idea, the biggest problem is my rather addictive personality.

For example, in about half an hour I'm going to pick up Wings of Liberty + Heart of the Swarm from Best Buy. I expect to burn through the single player campaigns rather quickly, leaving me with my typical "Release content faster!" mentality.

[Lebanese Dude]

Il Divo wrote...

Could be a good idea, the biggest problem is my rather addictive personality.

For example, in about half an hour I'm going to pick up Wings of Liberty + Heart of the Swarm from Best Buy. I expect to burn through the single player campaigns rather quickly, leaving me with my typical "Release content faster!" mentality.

Yeah I'm in the same boat with Civ 5

[Il Divo]

Stupid Black Friday deals. <_<

My brother's doing the same with the Elder Scrolls Anthology. $80 normally being sold for $30. Freaking insane.

[Fast Jimmy]

I feel like we are drifitng away from the original topic of microtransactions... LOL

[metatheurgist]

Microtransactions will exist as long as people keep buying them. Cigarrettes exist because people keep buying them. The drug trade that has most of South America overrun with gangs kidnapping and beheading people exists because people in North America want to get high. <shrugs>

[Jestina]

I really detest DLC. Often times it's just content that should have been included with the game to begin with, or it's just minor cosmetic junk....and highly overpriced. Now it's gotten to the point where they shamelessly hit you with ads for DLC while you're playing a game. Remember that slap in the face we got at the end of ME3?

[Fast Jimmy]

metatheurgist wrote...

Microtransactions will exist as long as people keep buying them. Cigarrettes exist because people keep buying them. The drug trade that has most of South America overrun with gangs kidnapping and beheading people exists because people in North America want to get high. <shrugs>

And there are insanely strict laws that work to regulate or outlaw drugs and cigarettes. It's only a matter of tiem before a civil suit or an arvocqcy group or a law maker with an agenda sets their sights on digital transactions in video games. Does anyone really think its wise for a developer to get involved with an practice that, barely in ifs infancy, heralds consumer blowback and venues for gross abuse?

[metatheurgist]

I'm not advocating Microtransactions, I just don't think you can stop them. Especially if the gun debate is anything to go by. People want what they want, no matter how irrational, unhealthy, harmful or uneconomical it is.

Modifié par metatheurgist, 29 novembre 2013 - 03:23 .

[Maria Caliban]

Eurypterid wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Because it would probably lead to better games.

I think you're fooling yourself if you really believe that. But I'm a cynic.

If games were sold at a higher price while retaining the same sales volume then you'd see better games, for most every definition of 'better games.'

The economic downturn caused many game publishers to drop into the red, which means they became more conservative about what games - and what kind of games - they're willing to fund.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I don't disagree with the logic that without the time after the game goes gold that certain content wouldn't be finished, but I highly doubt it is coincidence that it is a companion and their associated recruitment mission EVERY TIME without it being by design. Would there be content that didn't make it to the main game/bugs that wouldn't be fixed without this extra time? No doubt. But would that content just so happen to correspond to another companion if not by plan? No, I'd (personally) highly doubt it. 

Well of course it's by design now. Shale's popularity prompted Bioware to start planning Day 1 DLC deliberately, ahead of time.

But without the concept of DLC, these characters would just be cut, never to be heard from. It's the business model of DLC that allows for these characters to be created. In order to justify the resources spent on this extra content, it has to be profitable. Shale was an extremely generous, one-time event. There's no way Bioware could sustain that long-term, only charities can justify consuming resources for no profit.

The catch is that Bioware can't easily sell a few extra dungeons levels, a few small side quests and/or some bug fixes as a $10 DLC package... but they can sell a companion. So it's possible they select which companion that would be, put the companion's work on the back burner, then finish the less marketable aspects of the game. If the priority was to finish all companions, but skimp on some dungeon maps, would fan outcry about being sold a game with cut content be as loud?

I don't know... but I'd doubt it. 

I think that's exactly what they do; look at their characters, decide who's going in the main game, who's going into DLC and who's getting cut outright.

I don't have a problem with that.

[slimgrin]

 

$5.99

[DRTJR]

I'm going to say this, I like Shale, Zaeed, Sebastian, and, Javik. So long as the Day one DLC characters are good to Great then I will keep buying them. All of them could have been cut But I would have missed on their quirks and Bad Assitude.

[BouncyFrag]

 Thane deserved nice things though. Now I'm sad.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And there are insanely strict laws that work to regulate or outlaw drugs and cigarettes. It's only a matter of tiem before a civil suit or an arvocqcy group or a law maker with an agenda sets their sights on digital transactions in video games. Does anyone really think its wise for a developer to get involved with an practice that, barely in ifs infancy, heralds consumer blowback and venues for gross abuse?

I can't see a downside scenario here that's actually plausible.

[Eurypterid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you're making a niche product, that's irrelevant.

If you're talking about gaming, no it's not. The 'niche' product now has a much larger consumer base just like the mainstream product.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Great.  That's more peopel who could potentially pay $160 for a game.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and postulate that gaming companies/publishers have done plenty of market research, and since we're not seeing $160 or even $100 games they've concluded that there aren't plenty of people that will pay that much. Otherwise you can be certain we'd have seen a sharp rise in game prices.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Giant, inefficient companies.

An interesting conclusion. I don't think that particular blanket is going to cover all of them though.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
As little as 15 years ago, AAA games were getting made by teams of 20 people.

I'm not saying that today's games could be made with 20 people.  I'm saying that great games can be made with 20 people.

Yes they can. And I'm not arguing that point. What I'm saying is higher priced games does not mean better quality games, and I doubt very much that it will.

[Lord Gremlin]

Well, I sure hope it doesn't have microtransactions. I don't buy such games on principle - so I never learned what happened after Dead Space 2.
I don't mind spending on DLC though. I got all DLC for DAO.