169 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Mirrman70 wrote...

I like the idea of this thread. All of you should just get all the whining and grumbling about day one DLC out of the way so the forum isn't filled with it the day it's announced.

If only.

[Angrywolves]

Nothing will be out of the way.It will all be fair game on day 1 of the release.

[Thomas Andresen]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Mirrman70 wrote...

I like the idea of this thread. All of you should just get all the whining and grumbling about day one DLC out of the way so the forum isn't filled with it the day it's announced.

If only.

That person clearly don't know the BSN well enough.

Edit: I also would like to stress Plaintiff's point here:

They seem like it, yes, but I'm still fairly sure that even Day 1 DLC is content that we would not be getting if the DLC business model didn't exist.

People are going to point to Shale, and say "this is how it should be done, if it has to be done at all", but the fact is that doing extra work and giving it away for free is simply not a sustainable business practice.

This is the essence of it. Boiling it down to capitalism is ignorant at best.

There's also the fact that the approval process is significantly shorter for DLC than for full games, so the deadline for the DLC is much closer to release than for the main game. I don't know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure the difference at least a couple of months.

Modifié par Thomas Andresen, 16 décembre 2013 - 05:04 .

[Sanunes]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

They seem like it, yes, but I'm still fairly sure that even Day 1 DLC is content that we would not be getting if the DLC business model didn't exist.

People are going to point to Shale, and say "this is how it should be done, if it has to be done at all", but the fact is that doing extra work and giving it away for free is simply not a sustainable business practice.

This is the essence of it. Boiling it down to capitalism is ignorant at best.

There's also the fact that the approval process is significantly shorter for DLC than for full games, so the deadline for the DLC is much closer to release than for the main game. I don't know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure the difference at least a couple of months.

This is the BSN, people were upset they had to download Shale because it was free DLC for there should have been a free disk included so they didn't waste their bandwidth on downloading it.  I do think people who complain about Day 1 DLC don't want to acknowledge that content wouldn't be there at all, its not cut from the game to charge people extra, its cut from the game for they don't have the time to get it ready for certification.  So there would be some work done on content, but it was deemed that it wasn't critical enough for the game or it would take too much time to get it ready for certification.

During the 360 and PS3 era I read an article where a game was stuck in certification for three months, now if that is common that is three months of wages BioWare would have to pay people to sit around and do nothing because the BSN has declared it doesn't like Day 1 DLC.  So instead of taking a risk and having those people make a DLC that they can sell, the lay all those people off.  The other option I can think of is being like most of the games that were launched with the Xbox1 and PS4 and require major patches for balancing and bug fixes on Day 1 and watch the servers crash under the load. My personal choice would be for Day 1 DLC so I have the option to buy it or not and not have to deal with the other issues.

[Fredward]

Plaintiff wrote...
They seem like it, yes, but I'm still fairly sure that even Day 1 DLC is content that we would not be getting if the DLC business model didn't exist.

People are going to point to Shale, and say "this is how it should be done, if it has to be done at all", but the fact is that doing extra work and giving it away for free is simply not a sustainable business practice.

Eh, I dunno man. Devs have often mentioned how hard backward compatibility is. They might now have a character in mind from the start who they want to make a Day One character but I still think s/he would get developed alongside the rest. And you could (rightly) argue that if there wasn't any Day One DLC's anymore that character simply wouldn't be present, but I think the whole thing started as someone going "Hey! We should lock out this character until they give us more money!"

But I don't really mind either way. Bioware's a business and businesses like money after all. I see the DLC system like expansion packs anyway (eh, for the most part, I don't buy the loose bits), the only questionable bit is the Day One DLC thing but I am bought if not a beneficent soul.

[Sanunes]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
They seem like it, yes, but I'm still fairly sure that even Day 1 DLC is content that we would not be getting if the DLC business model didn't exist.

People are going to point to Shale, and say "this is how it should be done, if it has to be done at all", but the fact is that doing extra work and giving it away for free is simply not a sustainable business practice.

Eh, I dunno man. Devs have often mentioned how hard backward compatibility is. They might now have a character in mind from the start who they want to make a Day One character but I still think s/he would get developed alongside the rest. And you could (rightly) argue that if there wasn't any Day One DLC's anymore that character simply wouldn't be present, but I think the whole thing started as someone going "Hey! We should lock out this character until they give us more money!"

But I don't really mind either way. Bioware's a business and businesses like money after all. I see the DLC system like expansion packs anyway (eh, for the most part, I don't buy the loose bits), the only questionable bit is the Day One DLC thing but I am bought if not a beneficent soul.

The way I look at it is that they are all developed at the same time, but one of the characters needs to be cut because they need to spend the development time elsewhere so they might have that character cut at the 50% completion mark. So that character is cut from the game, now they decide they want to work on that character a little more and finish it for DLC.  So yes it is cut content, but I don't consider it "let's squeeze more money from the players", but "lets finish this character and release it".

Modifié par Sanunes, 16 décembre 2013 - 07:23 .

[Fredward]

^ You think this happens with every single game?

Yah know I've noticed something about human nature with the whole Day One DLC argument. People seem to want to believe that Bioware is "good" and (for some reason) feel that them including Day One companions is the antithesis to this conception. So what happens is that they either defend the Day One DLC practice by saying that it's the only way to include another character, or that there just wasn't enough time or whatever. It's never just about the money though, never that. It's like its bad to want to make money and Bioware can't be bad because I want to like them. And then you get the other side of the coin where people don't just dislike the Day One DLC thing they totally hate Bioware for participating in such a practice. So since making money is bad and they've come to the conclusion that Bioware wants to make money Bioware must be bad. In psychology you'd call this compartmentalization.

I find it... weird. Bioware does some stuff that I don't like but I don't find the need to defend them, I still like them, as a whole. You can like/agree with some practices and not like others, it's not a take-one-take-all thing. I dunno. It's a weird way of looking at stuff.

[MissOuJ]

Sanunes wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Eh, I dunno man. Devs have often mentioned how hard backward compatibility is. They might now have a character in mind from the start who they want to make a Day One character but I still think s/he would get developed alongside the rest. And you could (rightly) argue that if there wasn't any Day One DLC's anymore that character simply wouldn't be present, but I think the whole thing started as someone going "Hey! We should lock out this character until they give us more money!"

But I don't really mind either way. Bioware's a business and businesses like money after all. I see the DLC system like expansion packs anyway (eh, for the most part, I don't buy the loose bits), the only questionable bit is the Day One DLC thing but I am bought if not a beneficent soul.

The way I look at it is that they are all developed at the same time, but one of the characters needs to be cut because they need to spend the development time elsewhere so they might have that character cut at the 50% completion mark. So that character is cut from the game, now they decide they want to work on that character a little more and finish it for DLC.  So yes it is cut content, but I don't consider it "let's squeeze more money from the players", but "lets finish this character and release it".

Isn't this basically what happened with Kasumi? Folks found content and stuff refering to her on the original ME2 disk, but you couldn't just unlock her with console commands or the like, because the stuff that was on the disk was placeholder material to make eventually including her in the game easier.

So yes, technically (some of) Kasumi is on the disk... just not anywhere near enough to make her a functional part of the game in any shape or form. And I have a feeling that if Stolen Memory had not been released as DLC, she'd probably stayed that way: as cut content that was on the disk just because nobody had had the time to sweep the disk of all the things refering to her.

[Liamv2]

When the main game is now finished and they start working on DLC.

[Sanunes]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

^ You think this happens with every single game?

Yah know I've noticed something about human nature with the whole Day One DLC argument. People seem to want to believe that Bioware is "good" and (for some reason) feel that them including Day One companions is the antithesis to this conception. So what happens is that they either defend the Day One DLC practice by saying that it's the only way to include another character, or that there just wasn't enough time or whatever. It's never just about the money though, never that. It's like its bad to want to make money and Bioware can't be bad because I want to like them. And then you get the other side of the coin where people don't just dislike the Day One DLC thing they totally hate Bioware for participating in such a practice. So since making money is bad and they've come to the conclusion that Bioware wants to make money Bioware must be bad. In psychology you'd call this compartmentalization.

I find it... weird. Bioware does some stuff that I don't like but I don't find the need to defend them, I still like them, as a whole. You can like/agree with some practices and not like others, it's not a take-one-take-all thing. I dunno. It's a weird way of looking at stuff.

I am not trying to defend them, that is how I look at the situation.  I don't think there is anything wrong with either of our opinions, for neither of us really know the reasoning behind the choice BioWare makes.  We are bringing our own personal bias and the information we absorbed over our lifetime to analyze the situation.

I don't think BioWare is "good" or "bad" I think they are a company that desires to make money, but if I really don't like Day 1 DLC I have the option to tell them how much I dislike it by not buying it and if enough people do that they won't see a profit it releasing which will end the practice.

If a company wants to alienate me as a customer how they handle DLC and its content is probably one of the few ways it can be done.

[Sanunes]

MissOuJ wrote...

Isn't this basically what happened with Kasumi? Folks found content and stuff refering to her on the original ME2 disk, but you couldn't just unlock her with console commands or the like, because the stuff that was on the disk was placeholder material to make eventually including her in the game easier.

So yes, technically (some of) Kasumi is on the disk... just not anywhere near enough to make her a functional part of the game in any shape or form. And I have a feeling that if Stolen Memory had not been released as DLC, she'd probably stayed that way: as cut content that was on the disk just because nobody had had the time to sweep the disk of all the things refering to her.

Honestly I don't know for certain, but its how I look at the situation.

[Iakus]

Plaintiff wrote...

People are going to point to Shale, and say "this is how it should be done, if it has to be done at all", but the fact is that doing extra work and giving it away for free is simply not a sustainable business practice.

Except Shale (and Zaeed in ME2) was only free for those who bought the game new.  Anyone who bought a used copy had to pay $10.

The Stone prisoner encouraged people to buy new copies, which in turn helps Bioware/EA make money.

[Sanunes]

iakus wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

People are going to point to Shale, and say "this is how it should be done, if it has to be done at all", but the fact is that doing extra work and giving it away for free is simply not a sustainable business practice.

Except Shale (and Zaeed in ME2) was only free for those who bought the game new.  Anyone who bought a used copy had to pay $10.

The Stone prisoner encouraged people to buy new copies, which in turn helps Bioware/EA make money.

I am not sure if it did or didn't, for EA and most companies that had a version of "Project $10" all have seem to have stopped its practice.  Now is that because they wanted some good press or that it just wasn't profitable, I can't say.

[Bfler]

Plaintiff wrote...

People are going to point to Shale, and say "this is how it should be done, if it has to be done at all", but the fact is that doing extra work and giving it away for free is simply not a sustainable business practice.

All the extra stuff in the Witcher games is free and CDPR has already superseded Bioware as developer. So it seems it can be a sustainable practice.

[General TSAR]

Lovable companions.

[Killdren88]

JustAnotherZero wrote...

If I were EA... I wouldn't be trying to pull a fast one on their customers. Things are looking bad for EA right now with all the BF4 troubles.

Implying EA gives a damn of what people think of them.

Modifié par Killdren88, 16 décembre 2013 - 05:24 .

[Navasha]

Maybe companies should drop the whole day 1 DLC idea. Clearly, many of the consumers of their products don't quite understand the concept of it.

Just produce the additional content and make the ONLY way of getting it is to include it in a "luxury" edition. People either pay for the more expensive version of the game or they don't ever get it the extra content.

Apparently, the whole notion of allowing the consumer an option to purchase extra content al a carte is just irritating and confusing some of them.

[AlanC9]

Bfler wrote...
All the extra stuff in the Witcher games is free and CDPR has already superseded Bioware as developer. So it seems it can be a sustainable practice.

Leaving aside quality issues -- I'm not nearly as impressed with CDPR as you are -- Bio has higher labor costs, doesn't it?

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 décembre 2013 - 06:15 .

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

I think it's stupid and a tinly-veiled way to recoup the ever-rising cost of HD game development.

I'd be less upset with all this DLC nonsense if they actually put said DLC on sale for once.  Something is wrong when a 3-hour DLC (Omega) is now the same price as the 40-hour game new (ME3 itself).

Modifié par Red by Full Metal Jacket, 16 décembre 2013 - 09:45 .

[MissOuJ]

iakus wrote...

Except Shale (and Zaeed in ME2) was only free for those who bought the game new.  Anyone who bought a used copy had to pay $10.

The Stone prisoner encouraged people to buy new copies, which in turn helps Bioware/EA make money.

Ever since EA dropped their Project $10 / Online Pass -policy, both have been free. I bought by copy of DA:O used and never actually bought Shale, which is why I downloaded her free a while ago.

[Sanunes]

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...

I think it's stupid and a tinly-veiled way to recoup the ever-rising cost of HD game development.

I'd be less upset with all this DLC nonsense if they actually put said DLC on sale for once.  Something is wrong when a 3-hour DLC (Omega) is now the same price as the 40-hour game new (ME3 itself).

Are you looking for the DLC itself to go on sale or the BioWare points? For I have seen BioWare points on sale a couple of times since Origin was started and bought enough to cover all the DLC purchases I made. I haven't looked in over a year since I haven't needed any tho.

[AlanC9]

Where do you look to see if there's a sale, besides trying to buy a DLC you don't have the points for? I'm in the DLC-isn't-worth-it-at-full-price camp too.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 décembre 2013 - 10:39 .

[AtreiyaN7]

*rolleyes@thread*

[Nonoru]

TK514 wrote...

They're waiting until the OP reveals what he is most looking forward to the game, and will make that day on DLC.

Because everyone knows that day 1 DLC is content they specifically cut to ****** off the players and make them pay more.