750 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

^

That's Month One DLC, for the record.

[Volus Warlord]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

That's Month One DLC, for the record.

Day One DLC will work better

[leaguer of one]

Eurypterid wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
 You're basicly buying something way before knowing you would want it or if it good

If I understand Jimmy correctly, no, you're not. You're paying for a new copy of the game and as a reward, you get a discount on future DLC (if any). There's no extra cost attached for this - it's included in the price of the game. For what It's worth, I can get behind this idea.

What would matter if it's discounted or not if the dlc is bad. Does buying a turd make it better if it's half off?

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Eurypterid wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
 You're basicly buying something way before knowing you would want it or if it good

If I understand Jimmy correctly, no, you're not. You're paying for a new copy of the game and as a reward, you get a discount on future DLC (if any). There's no extra cost attached for this - it's included in the price of the game. For what It's worth, I can get behind this idea.

Exactly. You can sell the discount separately (and maybe have some other benefits, like access to content like what the Cereberus Network tried to do with ME2) for used copies, but the main benefit is to include it with copies of the new game. 

If people feel like A) they are getting a discount and they would be lapping out on a perceived benefit if they DIDN'T buy every piece of DLC that was out out, it would result in higher DLC volume sales. It's less constraining than selling a book of goods like. Season Pass and it has less of your "one and done" results that you see with D1DLC. And, for my own two cents since it is my concept, it would have D1DLC omitted and, instead, M1DLC to come out. 

Again, what would the discount matter if the dlc is bad. Is getting a turd half off make it worth the discount?

[suprhomre]

enjoy

[JimboGee]

I can see why a lot of people in cluding myself dont like day one DLC. For me personally it adds nothing big to my enjoyment of the game. I can still enjoy the story and finish the game without feeling the need to dig into my pockets again. They aim day one DLC at die hard fans, who must have everything and children. It's a tactic some may not feel at home with but thats business.

If they actually ever put something in the day one DLC that I couldnt live without, I would be more inclined to purchase it. As it stands, it's the equivolent of buying a new jacket and the store owner asking you to pay another 5 (insert currency of choice here) for an extra two spare buttons.

[addiction21]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


No. This is a superior model because instead of using the new copy of the game to leverage just one DLC, it leverages ALL of your DLC. 

Try and keep up with my repeated theories and stances if you're going to patronize about them. 

Sorry I guess this months "Fast Jimmys thoughts on DLC" Newsletter got lost in the mail

I don't see how a discount will placate most of the complaints. Every time Shale comes up it gets a pass because it was free. There is still left over code for Shale in Redcliffe and if I remember other places so how would it be a little more cheaper fix the "it was clearly cut content because of that code" complaints?

A industry plagued by "what you see is not what you get" how would a discount on possible future content that would still need to be paid for do anything? Especially when it comes to something like Shale.

Personally I would rather know what it was that I could get now then what might show up for a discount.

And with how fans on the internet are would you convince them it was a discount in the first place? Instead of some new nefarious scam by the big evil greedy publishers?

Modifié par addiction21, 24 décembre 2013 - 03:46 .

[leaguer of one]

suprhomre wrote...



enjoy

[Il Divo]

leaguer of one wrote...

Right because asking some one to pay more right after they paid for some rhing right after you bought somethig from you is a good  bisness model, especally when that something could of been with the product you just bought.

When I bought my Xbox 360, I don't recall it coming with four controllers right off the bat. A good business model does not involve giving in to every single demand a customer might want. I could sit here and throw a fit regarding the lack of four controllers with my gaming console, but as with any product, I don't have the ability to decide the terms of sale. It's a simple question of: do I feel my money was worth the product? 

Yes, it's really that black and white. No way could this be done to make sure you don't buy the game used. It's total about the quality and not about dignaty and customer service.

Your customer service translates to wanting everything on your terms. In any transaction, there are two roles: the business responsible for setting up the transaction and the consumer who decides whether the transaction is worth their money.

Hell, with your customer service, I should expect the car company to pay for any and all maintenance costs to my car, cosmetic changes, oil changes, etc, because anything else is cheating the consumer.

 How would pay for day 1 dlc defer that? It brings a $50 -$60 game up $10 no matter what and it not like furture dlc is not going to added to the profit ether.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

[Fast Jimmy]

Again, what would the discount matter if the dlc is bad. Is getting a turd half off make it worth the discount?

Yes. It is.

Bioware is going to make DLC. That's just a reality. And it's not a bad one - Bioware making content to release between full games is good, since the industry has more often than not given up on Expansion Packs.

The problem with DLC is that for every month you wait, your potential market diminishes by some amount. If, however, people feel like they are invested in a game with a discount system, then they are more likely to stick around and utilize it.

Tell me... who really spent $10 on Sebastian as a DLC? He came free with pre-orders, so how many people really said "I bought this game the week after it came out, so I have to pay $10 for this... this guy looks totally worth it!" I'm sure many people did, but given the fact that Sebastian is not a very widely praised or referenced character, I'm sure it wasn't a huge revenue generator. Yet Bioware took the stigma of having DA2 be the first game they made where the D1DLC character wasn't given away for all new copies, regardless of date of purchase.

Meanwhile, Legacy and MotA were both praised as being good, with Legacy having a good story and better encounter design than the base DA2 game's wave mechanic, while MotA had a return to more puzzles, which pleased some players (just like some players were pleased with the visit to Orlais and Tallis as a companion).

So the D1DLC is, arguably, the weakest piece of DLC for DA2. It didn't likely secure many pre-orders, which likely had their biggest boost from DA:O love. If, instead, a discount was included with the game's new purchase, I predict it would have resulted in the same amount of base sales, but with a much higher volume of those three DLC being sold, giving Bioware a better shot at people spending $15 on the three half-priced DLCs than getting The Exiled Prince for free and then buying both of the other DLC to only make $5 more.

And that's with DA2, which had the lowest amount of DLC of any Bioware game in the past three title releases. ME2 had five DLCs - the Cereberus Network (Zaeed), Stolen Memory (Kasumi), Overlord, LOTSB and Arrival. ME3 had four paid DLCs - From Ashes, Leviathan, Omega and Citadel (not including the free EC). DA:O had a whooping seven - Stone Prisoner, Warden's Keep, Return to Ostagar, Darkspawn Chronicles, Leliana's Song, Golems of Amgarrak and Witch Hunt. And none of that is including gear DLC, like alternate appearance or weapons, or more nonsensical content, like the Feasteay gifts/pranks.

If Bioware worked to get the hooks in early to encourage players to buy DLC early and often with a discount that rewards players who earn Bioware the most money (those who don't buy used) and also results in a longer shelf life to sell DLC, it will earn them more money in the end. Using DLC to, instead, try and leverage a behind the scenes higher sticker price leaves a bad taste in many player's mouths, when they could earn gamer goodwill with a free discount... a discount which has the potential to earn much more over the lifetime of the game.

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't see how a discount will placate most of the complaints. Every time Shale comes up it gets a pass because it was free. There is still left over code for Shale in Redcliffe and if I remember other places so how would it be a little more cheaper fix the "it was clearly cut content because of that code" complaints?

Free is free. I don't care if they developed it right alongside the main game - becasue they are saying "hey, in our downtime between Gold and release, we finished this... enjoy." It's not nefarious be chse the only ulterior motive is to make the player's experience better, not to charge them for it.

If, instead, I select content a year in advance to sell, where the team will be working on it to get it JUST complete enough to finish after going Gold, just to get a few extra bucks, IS nefarious. It's deliberate and intentional in its plan to entice the player to pay more than the base sticker price. I'd rather pay $70 for a game than to have an elaborate ruse be designed to sell a game for $60 and then attach content the very first day of release to weasel an extra $10 out.

That's the difference.

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Again, what would the discount matter if the dlc is bad. Is getting a turd half off make it worth the discount?

Yes. It is.

Bioware is going to make DLC. That's just a reality. And it's not a bad one - Bioware making content to release between full games is good, since the industry has more often than not given up on Expansion Packs.

The problem with DLC is that for every month you wait, your potential market diminishes by some amount. If, however, people feel like they are invested in a game with a discount system, then they are more likely to stick around and utilize it.

Tell me... who really spent $10 on Sebastian as a DLC? He came free with pre-orders, so how many people really said "I bought this game the week after it came out, so I have to pay $10 for this... this guy looks totally worth it!" I'm sure many people did, but given the fact that Sebastian is not a very widely praised or referenced character, I'm sure it wasn't a huge revenue generator. Yet Bioware took the stigma of having DA2 be the first game they made where the D1DLC character wasn't given away for all new copies, regardless of date of purchase.

Meanwhile, Legacy and MotA were both praised as being good, with Legacy having a good story and better encounter design than the base DA2 game's wave mechanic, while MotA had a return to more puzzles, which pleased some players (just like some players were pleased with the visit to Orlais and Tallis as a companion).

So the D1DLC is, arguably, the weakest piece of DLC for DA2. It didn't likely secure many pre-orders, which likely had their biggest boost from DA:O love. If, instead, a discount was included with the game's new purchase, I predict it would have resulted in the same amount of base sales, but with a much higher volume of those three DLC being sold, giving Bioware a better shot at people spending $15 on the three half-priced DLCs than getting The Exiled Prince for free and then buying both of the other DLC to only make $5 more.

And that's with DA2, which had the lowest amount of DLC of any Bioware game in the past three title releases. ME2 had five DLCs - the Cereberus Network (Zaeed), Stolen Memory (Kasumi), Overlord, LOTSB and Arrival. ME3 had four paid DLCs - From Ashes, Leviathan, Omega and Citadel (not including the free EC). DA:O had a whooping seven - Stone Prisoner, Warden's Keep, Return to Ostagar, Darkspawn Chronicles, Leliana's Song, Golems of Amgarrak and Witch Hunt. And none of that is including gear DLC, like alternate appearance or weapons, or more nonsensical content, like the Feasteay gifts/pranks.

If Bioware worked to get the hooks in early to encourage players to buy DLC early and often with a discount that rewards players who earn Bioware the most money (those who don't buy used) and also results in a longer shelf life to sell DLC, it will earn them more money in the end. Using DLC to, instead, try and leverage a behind the scenes higher sticker price leaves a bad taste in many player's mouths, when they could earn gamer goodwill with a free discount... a discount which has the potential to earn much more over the lifetime of the game.

You miss understand my point. I'm not saying one system is better then the other. My point is that nether is better and have flaws.The flaw of the discout system is you are buying something before you know anything about it. What if they do this and the dlc was like DAO, which most were bad. What it they did this and the stopped making dlc early like DA2?  That is not a problem where is the guarrentee of quality? What says  they are going to put out dlc I would like in the first place?

Day one dlc is not better then this but the season pass system is also not better. THEY BOTH HAVE FLAWS.

[addiction21]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If, instead, I select content a year in advance to sell, where the team will be working on it to get it JUST complete enough to finish after going Gold, just to get a few extra bucks, IS nefarious. It's deliberate and intentional in its plan to entice the player to pay more than the base sticker price. I'd rather pay $70 for a game than to have an elaborate ruse be designed to sell a game for $60 and then attach content the very first day of release to weasel an extra $10 out.

That's the difference.

Say that P word. I know you want to.

You are paying 70 dollars for the exact same content in that scenario so just say it.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Again, what would the discount matter if the dlc is bad. Is getting a turd half off make it worth the discount?

Yes. It is.

Bioware is going to make DLC. That's just a reality. And it's not a bad one - Bioware making content to release between full games is good, since the industry has more often than not given up on Expansion Packs.

The problem with DLC is that for every month you wait, your potential market diminishes by some amount. If, however, people feel like they are invested in a game with a discount system, then they are more likely to stick around and utilize it.

Tell me... who really spent $10 on Sebastian as a DLC? He came free with pre-orders, so how many people really said "I bought this game the week after it came out, so I have to pay $10 for this... this guy looks totally worth it!" I'm sure many people did, but given the fact that Sebastian is not a very widely praised or referenced character, I'm sure it wasn't a huge revenue generator. Yet Bioware took the stigma of having DA2 be the first game they made where the D1DLC character wasn't given away for all new copies, regardless of date of purchase.

Meanwhile, Legacy and MotA were both praised as being good, with Legacy having a good story and better encounter design than the base DA2 game's wave mechanic, while MotA had a return to more puzzles, which pleased some players (just like some players were pleased with the visit to Orlais and Tallis as a companion).

So the D1DLC is, arguably, the weakest piece of DLC for DA2. It didn't likely secure many pre-orders, which likely had their biggest boost from DA:O love. If, instead, a discount was included with the game's new purchase, I predict it would have resulted in the same amount of base sales, but with a much higher volume of those three DLC being sold, giving Bioware a better shot at people spending $15 on the three half-priced DLCs than getting The Exiled Prince for free and then buying both of the other DLC to only make $5 more.

And that's with DA2, which had the lowest amount of DLC of any Bioware game in the past three title releases. ME2 had five DLCs - the Cereberus Network (Zaeed), Stolen Memory (Kasumi), Overlord, LOTSB and Arrival. ME3 had four paid DLCs - From Ashes, Leviathan, Omega and Citadel (not including the free EC). DA:O had a whooping seven - Stone Prisoner, Warden's Keep, Return to Ostagar, Darkspawn Chronicles, Leliana's Song, Golems of Amgarrak and Witch Hunt. And none of that is including gear DLC, like alternate appearance or weapons, or more nonsensical content, like the Feasteay gifts/pranks.

If Bioware worked to get the hooks in early to encourage players to buy DLC early and often with a discount that rewards players who earn Bioware the most money (those who don't buy used) and also results in a longer shelf life to sell DLC, it will earn them more money in the end. Using DLC to, instead, try and leverage a behind the scenes higher sticker price leaves a bad taste in many player's mouths, when they could earn gamer goodwill with a free discount... a discount which has the potential to earn much more over the lifetime of the game.

that's the irony of this situation, BioWare hooks people so damn well were still foolishly debating the merits of certain characters thrown into the mix of the game. Truth be told the Mass Effect 2 model is probably best; offer a service for free DLC (and one paid one, like Zaeed) for a smaller price over say, a season pass for $30.00.

There are several models that have proven to work, of course the ones used tend to be the ones that are a compromise between the retailers and the consumers. The Cerberus Network was not well-received by companies like Gamestop, for example, because it undercutted the used game market too heavily. 

[LinksOcarina]

leaguer of one wrote...

You miss understand my point. I'm not saying one system is better then the other. My point is that nether is better and have flaws.The flaw of the discout system is you are buying something before you know anything about it. What if they do this and the dlc was like DAO, which most were bad. What it they did this and the stopped making dlc early like DA2?  That is not a problem where is the guarrentee of quality? What says  they are going to put out dlc I would like in the first place?

Day one dlc is not better then this but the season pass system is also not better. THEY BOTH HAVE FLAWS.

Then don't buy any DLC or ****ing deal with it. As a consumer you have buying power like that. It means little in the grand scheme of thngs, not to mention no one cares what you think or do in the end either. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 24 décembre 2013 - 04:10 .

[leaguer of one]

Il Divo wrote...

"When I bought my Xbox 360, I don't recall it coming with four controllers right off the bat. A good business model does not involve giving in to every single demand a customer might want. I could sit here and throw a fit regarding the lack of four controllers with my gaming console, but as with any product, I don't have the ability to decide the terms of sale. It's a simple question of: do I feel my money was worth the product? "

You don't need 4 controlers fro the start. I'm not say everything addition must be free, just that certein thing you know the customer want with the product you provied with it and not have it be paid extra. It would be like selling an hdtv with out the hdmi cable with it. Of an xbox 360 with out a month free pass of xbox live or a controler.

"Your customer service translates to wanting everything on your terms. In any transaction, there are two roles: the business responsible for setting up the transaction and the consumer who decides whether the transaction is worth their money. "

That does not include exlution of a part of a product just so you can charge extra for it


"I'm not sure what you're saying here."

You stated them doing this main the cost of the game stays down. I'm asking how you do that when it cost me more to get all the content for the game?
Saying I have to $70 for all the content for the game some how means I won't have to pay $70 for a game, makes no sense.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 24 décembre 2013 - 04:11 .

[leaguer of one]

LinksOcarina wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

You miss understand my point. I'm not saying one system is better then the other. My point is that nether is better and have flaws.The flaw of the discout system is you are buying something before you know anything about it. What if they do this and the dlc was like DAO, which most were bad. What it they did this and the stopped making dlc early like DA2?  That is not a problem where is the guarrentee of quality? What says  they are going to put out dlc I would like in the first place?

Day one dlc is not better then this but the season pass system is also not better. THEY BOTH HAVE FLAWS.

Then don't buy any DLC or ****ing deal with it. As a consumer you have buying power like that. It means little in the grand scheme of thngs, not to mention no one cares what you think or do in the end either. 

yes that work but if everyone does that then the bisness gets no money and they would find no point in doing it. Would it?
Me stating my opinion helps them find away to profit off of customers like me and makes everything more mutual benefical.

[Dominus]

Not a single fan likes it and you get bad rep.

If a single fan didn't like it, it wouldn't sell. You could make the same argument over DRM and similarly-polarizing game topics. It's true that the Day 1 DLC has a history of causing issues among fans, and this is definitely not the first time the discussion has been brought up on here.

I'd assume for as long as it continues to sell, the trend will continue. I personally don't care for DLC in general(the last BioWare-Related one I purchased was ME2's Arrival), but without exceptionally strong points against it, I don't see it dissapearing anytime soon.

Modifié par DominusVita, 24 décembre 2013 - 04:26 .

[Eurypterid]

leaguer of one wrote...
What would matter if it's discounted or not if the dlc is bad. Does buying a turd make it better if it's half off?

Not sure I see your point here. If the DLC is bad, then just like DLC now... don't buy it. No, a turd's not better if it's half off, but if the general concensus is it's a turd and if it doesn't look like something you want to buy in the first place, then you don't buy it. You're out nothing. If, however, it looks like something you want to add to your game and/or you hear good things about it, then you buy it at a discount. Where's the issue? Other than that whole "It should be free" thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

leaguer of one wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Right because asking some one to pay more right after they paid for some rhing right after you bought somethig from you is a good  bisness model, especally when that something could of been with the product you just bought.

It is, actually.  Your best prospect is a current customer.

No it's not. Doing that would drive you customer away.

Are you saying that you have evidence that it drives customers away generally, or that you feel like it would drive you away, and you're extrapolating from your own impression of your behaviour (which might not even be accurate) to the behaviour of all people?

Your existing customer is a better prospect than a non-customer, because your existing customer has already self-selected himself as someone who is interested in your products.  Even if your current customers are less likely to buy your product after they become customers than they were before they became customers, you didn't know who they were until after they became customers.

This is exactly how charities target fundraising appeals.

The goal is not to get as much money from them at one. It's to make sure they want to and are willing to come back and pay more out of their own will. If a customer finds out that they just bought something form you and  find out there is something they want that could of been part of the package with no extra cost and they have need to buy ot they would feel cheated.

I don't care how my customers feel.  I care what they do with their money.

[satunnainen]

Personally I dont see much difference between day-1 or day-30 DLC:s. If the game is going to have DLC;s, then the sooner they are released, the better More interesting would be to know, that the DLC has enough content for its prize. DLC on day-1 might be slightly irritating, but there are a lot more irritating trends in the game publishing business. Also, I dont always buy a game on day-1. so quite often there will be several DLC:s when I buy it.

I am a lot more irritated about the current trend of making shorter and shorter main games, say full prize and 3 hours of gameplay. Oh sure, it has achievements, so you can replay it 5 times to make it 15 hours of gameplay, yes? No!

[Paul E Dangerously]

I just want to see someone say "We will not have Day One DLC for this title", only to put it out exactly twenty-four hours after release in each region.

[AlanC9]

If they did that I'd have to buy the DLC on principle.

[Il Divo]

leaguer of one wrote...


You don't need 4 controlers fro the start. I'm not say everything addition must be free, just that certein thing you know the customer want with the product you provied with it and not have it be paid extra. It would be like selling an hdtv with out the hdmi cable with it. Of an xbox 360 with out a month free pass of xbox live or a controler.

And you don't need Javik at the start. Do you see where I'm going with this? Every consumer has some notion in their head of what should and should not be included in a package, whether reasonable or unreasonable. Bioware's not going to make Javik free because leaguer of one feels cheated. Consumers typically want as much as they can get with a product.

That does not include exlution of a part of a product just so you can charge extra for it

You do not define what the product is, the business does. I'm required to pay extra to see movies in 3D. Additional toppings cost extra on a pizza, so on and so forth. The business decides what the base package consists of, you do not. If you'd like to take some hard line stance about how you're getting cheated, go right ahead.

You stated them doing this main the cost of the game stays down. I'm asking how you do that when it cost me more to get all the content for the game?
Saying I have to $70 for all the content for the game some how means I won't have to pay $70 for a game, makes no sense.

I'm saying that this way, you have more options, much like Sylvius pointed out. The price for video games has been at a static $60 for quite some time now. This is what makes the idea of Bioware simply trying to be greedy somewhat amusing. Dlc, which has less cost vs. content produced typically, is a way to recoup that cost.

Bioware could simply increase the base cost of games to $70-80 for all consumers across the board. Or they could leave them as is and give players the option of purchasing gameplay they find appealing to recoup those same costs. Basically, if we want to take the nickel and dime approach, I'd say consumers are more guilty than Bioware in this regard, simply given what we're required to pay.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Free is free. I don't care if they developed it right alongside the main game - becasue they are saying "hey, in our downtime between Gold and release, we finished this... enjoy." It's not nefarious be chse the only ulterior motive is to make the player's experience better, not to charge them for it.

If, instead, I select content a year in advance to sell, where the team will be working on it to get it JUST complete enough to finish after going Gold, just to get a few extra bucks, IS nefarious. It's deliberate and intentional in its plan to entice the player to pay more than the base sticker price. I'd rather pay $70 for a game than to have an elaborate ruse be designed to sell a game for $60 and then attach content the very first day of release to weasel an extra $10 out.

That's the difference.

I think this is a foolish approach to take. Why would anyone want to pay a larger base price, rather than have more precise control over what they're purchasing?

To make a comparison, about a year ago I got into card deck-building games, like Dominion, which has quite a few substantial expansions on release in addition to the stand alone base product. Some of these are extremely interesting while others are very bland. Why would I ever want the developers to charge hundreds of dollars for a complete package, when there are things in there I might not want and when I still have the ability to pay less for it?

Same with Mass Effect. If Overlord was the day 1 dlc, I'd much rather pay for the base game than base game + dlc.

Modifié par Il Divo, 24 décembre 2013 - 10:58 .