750 réponses à ce sujet

[Guns]

Dlc shouldn't be used to encourage preorders, that's what miniatures and maps and the like are for, and it shouldn't be on day 1. Dlc should be utilized for its storytelling potential. New stories, lore, and locations AFTER a substantial amount of time for people to finish playthroughs of the base game.

Modifié par Guns, 26 décembre 2013 - 03:43 .

[addiction21]

Guns wrote...

Dlc shouldn't be used to encourage preorders, that's what miniatures and maps and the like are for, and it shouldn't be on day 1. Dlc should be utilized for its storytelling potential. New stories, lore, and locations AFTER a substantial amount of time for people to finish playthroughs of the base game.

What sets minatures maps and the like apart from DLC?

Why is it such a crime that its day one?

Why is it that just because it is a quality product and is made available one day one so evil?

Why should anyone be made to wait for others to finish these games? Everyone plays in their own strides why should I be made to wait if I want that DLC for my first playthru until after you are done? What makes you so special?

[Guns]

If its available on day 1 it should be part of the base game whether that means it being on disc or a free download.

[Osena109]

 I loved the stone prisoner Day one DLC

[AlanC9]

Guns wrote...

If its available on day 1 it should be part of the base game whether that means it being on disc or a free download.

Why?

[Guns]

AlanC9 wrote...

Guns wrote...

If its available on day 1 it should be part of the base game whether that means it being on disc or a free download.

Why?

Why shouldn't it?

[addiction21]

Guns wrote...


Why shouldn't it?

Because its a business not a charity.

I answered yours now answer mine. Why should I be made to wait some arbitrary amount of to buy dlc just so you cane be happy?

[Guns]

addiction21 wrote...

Guns wrote...


Why shouldn't it?

Because its a business not a charity.

I answered yours now answer mine. Why should I be made to wait some arbitrary amount of to buy dlc just so you cane be happy?

If the dlc is available that close to release it means it was meant to be part of the core game, but wasn't due to time constraints. Obviously there is a significant amount of time between information being stored on a disc and those discs being on shelves at a store. With DLC that is no longer an issue. They can ship most of the game while finishing up let's say, since it seems to be the most common example presented in this thread, a companion. It was originally intended to be part of the core game and is available to players on the same day as the game is available from stores to be purchased. It's only logical to give that companion for free, as they did with Shale. 

With any business there has to be a profit made obviously, but the difference is companies who want to make profit to further sustain their position to tell stories that thousands-millions of people enjoy and companies who just want to maximize profit regardless of the quality of their product. I'm only interested in playing games produced by the former. Bioware use to be a company like that.

Modifié par Guns, 26 décembre 2013 - 05:43 .

[Mirrman70]

what if, now stay with me on this, day one dlc was not originally intended to be part of the game and instead was intended to be, wait for it, day one dlc. now regardless of the ethics involved in day one dlc it has done incredibly one a sales stand point. consumers are entitled to only what they are willing to pay for when it comes to LUXURY items, of which video games are a part of, so unless you find a way to successfully argue how video games are different from other luxury items you will never have your way with this. rage and cry and whine and claim you won't buy the game or the dlc because of it, you will never be able to stop businesses from using effective sales techniques such as day one dlc and preorder dlc. if its in the game files and you want to have it for free, hack it out of lockdown. now stop whining.

[Guns]

Mirrman70 wrote...
 if its in the game files and you want to have it for free, hack it out of lockdown. now stop whining.

I never said I wasn't going to. I would just prefer not to. 

[Maverick827]

Guns wrote...

I'm only interested in playing games produced by the former. Bioware use to be a company like that.

Ok then, leave.  Bye.

[In Exile]

Guns wrote...

If the dlc is available that close to release it means it was meant to be part of the core game, but wasn't due to time constraints. Obviously there is a significant amount of time between information being stored on a disc and those discs being on shelves at a store. With DLC that is no longer an issue. They can ship most of the game while finishing up let's say, since it seems to be the most common example presented in this thread, a companion. It was originally intended to be part of the core game and is available to players on the same day as the game is available from stores to be purchased. It's only logical to give that companion for free, as they did with Shale. 

You're wrong. The bold and underlined part of your post is where you've made a serious mistaken. This period of time - the period between when a game has gone "gold" and the actual sale - isn't development time. The game is "done" when the final state of it is recorded on a disk to be shipped for retail distribution. That's it. Game development over. There might be work done on patching content - which is why sometimes you get big (and free) Day 1 patches to fix stability issues, etc. - but that's 'continued support for the product' and not 'game development'. 

The fact that content can be available on Day 1 is a function of the fact that the internet can now distribute massive fileloads immediately. If it was 10 years ago, it would be available in month 2 because of the delay to get it to retailers. And we'd call it an Expansion Pack. 

[ManOfSteel]

The only pre-release DLC that I can personally tolerate is cosmetic. Skins for armour, weapons and characters that were created by the art team(s) once their role on the game had concluded. But releasing characters, quests and locations as pre-order, Collector's Edition or Day 1 DLC is incredibly lame, and always has been.

I'm totally cool with the team throwing in a few cosmetic items as a nice little thing for people, but giving pre-orders and collector's editions access to substantial content that other people can't access? Not cool. Collector's Editions should include things like statues, maps, soundtracks, art books, unique cases and other physical content. Not characters, weapons, quests or other in-game content.

Once the game is out, then developers should be able to release whatever content they want without concern and without being knocked for it. 

Modifié par DoomHK, 26 décembre 2013 - 10:26 .

[Il Divo]

Guns wrote...

If the dlc is available that close to release it means it was meant to be part of the core game, but wasn't due to time constraints. Obviously there is a significant amount of time between information being stored on a disc and those discs being on shelves at a store. With DLC that is no longer an issue. They can ship most of the game while finishing up let's say, since it seems to be the most common example presented in this thread, a companion. It was originally intended to be part of the core game and is available to players on the same day as the game is available from stores to be purchased. It's only logical to give that companion for free, as they did with Shale. 

Not really. There's nothing stopping a company from allocating additional resources when a game is commissioned. As to which Bioware employs? I couldn't tell you.

What I can say is my thought process is a lot more straight forward:

1) Examine contents of game and decide if it's worth my potential sale.
2) Buy/play game.
3) Re-evaluate whether my money was well spent.
4) Purchase any potential dlc if experience was enjoyed.

I don't see how dlc should factor to this. Even if Bioware is ripping it from the base game, that doesn't stop the experience from being enjoyable. As a business, they're the ones dictating the terms of sale. The consumer's role is to simply buy the product or walk away.

[LinksOcarina]

In Exile wrote...

Guns wrote...

If the dlc is available that close to release it means it was meant to be part of the core game, but wasn't due to time constraints. Obviously there is a significant amount of time between information being stored on a disc and those discs being on shelves at a store. With DLC that is no longer an issue. They can ship most of the game while finishing up let's say, since it seems to be the most common example presented in this thread, a companion. It was originally intended to be part of the core game and is available to players on the same day as the game is available from stores to be purchased. It's only logical to give that companion for free, as they did with Shale. 

You're wrong. The bold and underlined part of your post is where you've made a serious mistaken. This period of time - the period between when a game has gone "gold" and the actual sale - isn't development time. The game is "done" when the final state of it is recorded on a disk to be shipped for retail distribution. That's it. Game development over. There might be work done on patching content - which is why sometimes you get big (and free) Day 1 patches to fix stability issues, etc. - but that's 'continued support for the product' and not 'game development'. 

The fact that content can be available on Day 1 is a function of the fact that the internet can now distribute massive fileloads immediately. If it was 10 years ago, it would be available in month 2 because of the delay to get it to retailers. And we'd call it an Expansion Pack. 

To add to this, pretty much everything else I have been saying contributes to this as well. Going gold is pretty much the final step, which adds downtime for Day one DLC to be finalized for digital distribution. This is why  a lot of DLC is now pre-planned into the expanses; it is also why we get it so early. Now a days its almost expected too, which is something no one really discussed here I noticed. 

[AlanC9]

Guns wrote...

If the dlc is available that close to release it means it was meant to be part of the core game, but wasn't due to time constraints.

Why couldn't a developer have always meant it to be DLC?

[GnusmasTHX]

I've actually never been part of a community where launch DLC was such a relevant and controversial topic. The people who hate it are as outspoken as the people who... defend(?) it. That says something about how BioWare handles DLC, one way or another.

[LinksOcarina]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

I've actually never been part of a community where launch DLC was such a relevant and controversial topic. The people who hate it are as outspoken as the people who... defend(?) it. That says something about how BioWare handles DLC, one way or another.

Actually I think it says more about the minority fanbase here where they actually care about the DLC and how its handled over, lets say Ubiosoft and what they do or something like that. It is not terribly unique to this forum, but the discussions here are usually higher standard it seems. 

[Vort3xX]

Day one DLC or small additions is a f*cking abomination in todays gaming industry just like drm !, period.

Modifié par Vort3xX, 26 décembre 2013 - 11:39 .

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Guns wrote...

If its available on day 1 it should be part of the base game whether that means it being on disc or a free download.

Why?

Because, to quote Brent Knowles (the Lead Designer for The Stone Priosner), Paid D1DLC is "tacky."

Because it is. Yes, we all realize the devs need to keep the lights on, but it just screams of "we want to squeeze a few more pennies out of you." Yes, that's not 100% the reality, but that is the perception of many gamers. Which is a tacky way to have people view you. 

[Ninja Stan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because, to quote Brent Knowles (the Lead Designer for The Stone Priosner), Paid D1DLC is "tacky."

Because it is. Yes, we all realize the devs need to keep the lights on, but it just screams of "we want to squeeze a few more pennies out of you." Yes, that's not 100% the reality, but that is the perception of many gamers. Which is a tacky way to have people view you. 

And to play devil's advocate, everything a company does is intended to "squeeze a few more pennies out of you." They are a business, and if they can sell you something, they would prefer to do that over giving it to you for free, particularly when that something costs more than zero resources to produce.

That something's value and the decision to buy it is still up to the consumer. No one is forced to purchase it, and DLC is, by and large, additional content that is not required to complete the base game. Yes, you can dislike it, and yes, you can choose not to buy it, but no gamer is entitled to that content just because they feel it "should be part of the base game." Whether it is included in the base game is not your call to make.

[GnusmasTHX]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

What I still can't get over is that they are selling ideas that they didn't consider good enough for the original product during production. You're seriously going to try to sell me subpar stuff on top of me buying your product on release? Haha, no.

Don't be crazy. They intentionally put subpar stuff in the retail price, so that you have to buy the good stuff as DLC.

They just hide the subpar stuff in a good stuff sandwich so you don't notice.

Modifié par GnusmasTHX, 27 décembre 2013 - 12:56 .

[Angrywolves]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because, to quote Brent Knowles (the Lead Designer for The Stone Priosner), Paid D1DLC is "tacky."

Because it is. Yes, we all realize the devs need to keep the lights on, but it just screams of "we want to squeeze a few more pennies out of you." Yes, that's not 100% the reality, but that is the perception of many gamers. Which is a tacky way to have people view you. 

And to play devil's advocate, everything a company does is intended to "squeeze a few more pennies out of you." They are a business, and if they can sell you something, they would prefer to do that over giving it to you for free, particularly when that something costs more than zero resources to produce.

That something's value and the decision to buy it is still up to the consumer. No one is forced to purchase it, and DLC is, by and large, additional content that is not required to complete the base game. Yes, you can dislike it, and yes, you can choose not to buy it, but no gamer is entitled to that content just because they feel it "should be part of the base game." Whether it is included in the base game is not your call to make.

Loved Brent Knowles btw. It's a bit like romances, no one is required to do them yet the players who hate them raise a fuss. Players who don't like the way certain dlcs are done fuss about it.
I admit I don't like on disc dlc where you have to pay a fee to get an unlock code.Capcom has been criticized for doing this:

http://www.gamefront...hnical-reasons/

So it can be an issue for Bioware if they start doing this as well.

Modifié par Angrywolves, 27 décembre 2013 - 01:01 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because, to quote Brent Knowles (the Lead Designer for The Stone Priosner), Paid D1DLC is "tacky."

Because it is. Yes, we all realize the devs need to keep the lights on, but it just screams of "we want to squeeze a few more pennies out of you." Yes, that's not 100% the reality, but that is the perception of many gamers. Which is a tacky way to have people view you. 

And to play devil's advocate, everything a company does is intended to "squeeze a few more pennies out of you." They are a business, and if they can sell you something, they would prefer to do that over giving it to you for free, particularly when that something costs more than zero resources to produce.

That something's value and the decision to buy it is still up to the consumer. No one is forced to purchase it, and DLC is, by and large, additional content that is not required to complete the base game. Yes, you can dislike it, and yes, you can choose not to buy it, but no gamer is entitled to that content just because they feel it "should be part of the base game." Whether it is included in the base game is not your call to make.

To to play the angel's advocate to your devil's one, I'll bring in a totally unrelated anecdote. 

Debit card transactions are incredibly ubiquitous in our world today. But even a decade or two ago, they were in many places, but not in all. Locations like fast food restaurants, smaller stores, some gas stations, etc. did not have them. He reason why was that the systems cost money to install and maintain, as well as the fact that the processors charge on a per-swipe basis. 

As things progressed, these places of business felt the pressure to begin using these systems as less people used cash. But some of them required minimum purchase amounts, where someone would have to buy a pack of gum or a cup of coffee just to me their set dollar amount. Some other places only accepted one set of cards, such as acids instead of MasterCard, which resulted in confusion and embarrassment for the patrons who brought the "wrong" type of card. Still others passed the charge they were paying right onto the customer - $1 more to use a credit or debit card instead of cash. 

This resulted in frustration by customers across the board. Yes, some still used their cards despite these limitations. Many of these businesses likely felt that since people were dealing with these restrictions, that they must have been fine wih it - after all, using a debit card is a privilege, not a right. It costs the company money, so why should the customer get something for free? 

Then, some of the businesses began to remove these restrictions. And instantly those businesses that still had these now anti-consumer practices were quickly changing to follow suit. Because even though there were real costs associated with the practice, it still left a bad perception with the consumer. Yes, the consumer dealt with the practices and yes, the businesses weren't unwise to mitigate their costs but ultimately, once businesses stopped doing it, it caused customers to avoid or complain about the "bad" businesses and now these types of practices are exceptionally rare. 

Point being, not every developer has DLC. Not every developer has D1DLC. And not every developer charges for their DLC at all. Given that it is not ubiquitous across the industry and consumers have their choice of developers who engage in these practices and those who don't. Developers that do, like Capcom, have been vilified for doing it... while other developers like CEProjekt have been heralded for it. 

So is that perception born out of ignorance? Maybe, maybe not. It still doesn't change the fact that the consumer doesn't have to go through the practice for all businesses they go to for their video game purchases. And many customers have not been exactly satisfied with the model as a whole.