750 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm not... but the idea that D1DLC must be available when the player first plays the game, otherwise the developer runs the risk of losing money ASSUMES the player buys the DLC without playing the base game originally. Attaching it pre-orders, let alone forcing players to pre-order Collector's Editions (pre-paying for their DLC, in all practicality) results in buying both base game and DLC blindly. 

No, it assumes that nobody wins from delayed content. You still have not addressed this point. How exactly do you, Fastjimmy, benefit if Bioware simply delays the release of their dlc by a month or two?

You don't see it in any tangible manner.  Beyond some desire for wanting story content, you gain nothing from it. Content released on day 1 or 100 still have equal possibility of being ripped from the main game, so you're still not getting that content for free.

No, I'd say it's more along the lines of "hey guys, you should play this game DA:O, it's fantastic." "Oh, really? I guess I'll borrow it from you or buy it Used, since it has been out 10 Weeks now." "No, it comes with this really cool piece of DLC where you can add this awesome character for free if you buy the game new." "Oh, that sounds pretty awesome - let me go pick it up." And, then, DA:O sales hit their highest sales in a week on Week 10 instead of Week 1. Not Used sales, but New. Which is more money for the developer. 

I'd say you're overestimating the influence of dlc in generating sales. If I'm purchasing games on the recommendation of a friend, then I'm simply going to trust their judgment and purchase new. If I'm at the point where I'd rather just borrow it off them, I'm either going to say "that dlc for 3-4 hours of content isn't a big deal" or I'll just buy the dlc and borrow their copy of the game.

Key point being: good quality games generate sales, not the attachment of an extra few hours of content.

To clarify, it is implied that people have a problem with PAID D1DLC. Cutting the content completely is definitely one method of stopping that, but so is giving away that DLC for free to incentivize new game sales.

See above. If your game is terrible, it's terrible. If your game is great, it's great. Shale did not generate DA:O's sales.

Paying $10 extra for a few hours content may be worth it for some gamers, but it will tick off a number of other ones. The real danger is giving possible consumers a reason to go into your base game (or even skip your base game entirely) because of a practice they find distasteful with the only payoff being a small portion of increased revenue from the gamers who don't mind as much.

Which would be circumvented by word of mouth. "Hey, this game is phenomenal even with day 1 dlc", you should play it. Your hypothetical problem is solved by not making terrible games, which the market inevitably sorts out.

Or, even better, Bioware rips out part of their base game turns into "free" day 1 dlc for those who buy new. Gamers are still left feeling all happy with themselves, Bioware doesn't even have to increase resource cost, and used gamers still have to pay if they want all the content.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 décembre 2013 - 03:01 .

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...
No, it assumes that nobody wins from delayed content. You still have not addressed this point. How exactly do you, Fastjimmy, benefit if Bioware simply delays the release of their dlc by a month or two?

You don't see it in any tangible manner.  Beyond some desire for wanting story content, you gain nothing from it. Content released on day 1 or 100 still have equal possibility of being ripped from the main game, so you're still not getting that content for free.

I don't think he actually has to answer this for himself. It could just be a matter of personal taste. Hell, it's conceivable that there are so many people who feel this way that Bio should just hold on to the DLCs for a week or two, or however much time makes them feel better about DLC. Evaluating whether a taste is rational isn't a useful activity.

"Conceivable" is about as far as I'd go with that, though. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 décembre 2013 - 04:55 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I was talking about utility, not price/performance. Are you trying to change the subject, or just not following the discussion?

I lose utility if I don't have a DLC immediately. It doesn't matter what the cause of the problem is. It could be technical, it could be Bio not releasing day 1 DLC because Day 1 DLC makes Fast Jimmy feel bad. Either way, I can't play the DLC on day 1. The more times I play the game the lower a percentage of the DLC's utility I lose, but it is never zero.

Edit: note that I lose option value even if I'm likely not going to buy the DLC. So I guess I do have a dog in this fight after all.

I guess I wasn't following the conversation, since the only way I can think to calculate value is the amount paid as a quotient of the amount of times used or the amount of enjoyment obtained. If something is free, it's value as a consumer would have to be strongly, if not predominantly, determined by the fact that it had no price to the consumer.

Your enjoyment may be different, as well as how utilitarian it is... but I don't see how its value can be judged as low simply because the price to obtain it was free.

[Fast Jimmy]

No, it assumes that nobody wins from delayed content. You still have not addressed this point. How exactly do you, Fastjimmy, benefit if Bioware simply delays the release of their dlc by a month or two?

You don't see it in any tangible manner. Beyond some desire for wanting story content, you gain nothing from it. Content released on day 1 or 100 still have equal possibility of being ripped from the main game, so you're still not getting that content for free.

The perceived value of the base game becomes more with Day 100 DLC over Day 1, all things remaining exactly constant. In fact, this is true of Day Twenty DLC as well, as we can see from series like Assassin's Creed. And, as you all know, perception dictates reality.

If I, as the consumer, can play a base game with the knowledge that I am playing the game and having the full story content experience without feeling I may have missed something due to not paying more or feeling that I was charged more to see the extra content, my perception will be stronger. A person who plays ME3 who didn't pay extra for From Ashes, for example, may feel a twist of the knife every time the Protheans are mentioned, which is many times during the main story. Similarly, a player who sees only a brief comment, like Jahvik's side comments during the Asari temple, may think that the content they paid extra for wasn't worth the money they paid, not was it integrated as well into the main experience as they may have hoped.

It is truly the catch-22, where both groups of players will feel unsatisfied. Those who paid extra may not feel it was worth it, but those who didn't pay may suspect they are missing content at every turn.

If a player can go through the entire experience without these feelings, but then opt in to buy extra content at a later date, it remedies both sides of the equation - people who buy the extra content would not expect it greatly influence or change the base game experience since it was released after the main game and people who don't buy it know the base game experience can be judged entirely on its own merit.

I'd say you're overestimating the influence of dlc in generating sales. If I'm purchasing games on the recommendation of a friend, then I'm simply going to trust their judgment and purchase new. If I'm at the point where I'd rather just borrow it off them, I'm either going to say "that dlc for 3-4 hours of content isn't a big deal" or I'll just buy the dlc and borrow their copy of the game.

Key point being: good quality games generate sales, not the attachment of an extra few hours of content.

I'd say you are underestimating the value of even one new game sale over a used one. Especially versus the benefit gained from selling one piece of DLC. If the same marketting can be applied to both sets of products (the DLC or the new copy), then the value of gaining one of one versus the other is very lopsided.

Which would be circumvented by word of mouth. "Hey, this game is phenomenal even with day 1 dlc", you should play it. Your hypothetical problem is solved by not making terrible games, which the market inevitably sorts out.

Or, even better, Bioware rips out part of their base game turns into "free" day 1 dlc for those who buy new. Gamers are still left feeling all happy with themselves, Bioware doesn't even have to increase resource cost, and used gamers still have to pay if they want all the content.

The problem is them that a game has to be deemed a good base game DESPITE Paid D1DLC. Meaning that games perceive the base game to be diminished through the presence of the optional D1 Paid content, not enhanced (or even a net zero effect). That may not be logical, but it does not stop it from being the case.

Meanwhile, the exact opposite happens with free D1DLC. It is seen as the developer enhancing the base game and passing that on to thr loyal fanbase, instead of diminishing the main game to charge more for it separately. The same overall process either way, but the pricing method so overshadows the perception of the practice that it becomes two different things - Free D1DLC becomes extra content for free, while Paid D1DLC becomes parts of the base game whittled out to make more money.

Again - perception becomes reality.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If I, as the consumer, can play a base game with the knowledge that I am playing the game and having the full story content experience without feeling I may have missed something due to not paying more or feeling that I was charged more to see the extra content, my perception will be stronger. A person who plays ME3 who didn't pay extra for From Ashes, for example, may feel a twist of the knife every time the Protheans are mentioned, which is many times during the main story. Similarly, a player who sees only a brief comment, like Jahvik's side comments during the Asari temple, may think that the content they paid extra for wasn't worth the money they paid, not was it integrated as well into the main experience as they may have hoped.

It is truly the catch-22, where both groups of players will feel unsatisfied. Those who paid extra may not feel it was worth it, but those who didn't pay may suspect they are missing content at every turn.

If a player can go through the entire experience without these feelings, but then opt in to buy extra content at a later date, it remedies both sides of the equation - people who buy the extra content would not expect it greatly influence or change the base game experience since it was released after the main game and people who don't buy it know the base game experience can be judged entirely on its own merit.

So when I go to see a movie for example, am I expected to cringe in pain every time I experience some special effect which I could have viewed in 3D? Or when I take a bite of plain pizza, should I be weeping over the lack of olives? I've said this before, but my first playthrough was without Javik and the only questions I found myself asking, due to confusion, was regarding the ending. This is where it's critical to be able to point to a sales figure and say "customers are angry about Javik so they're not buying DA:I", which is itself difficult in absence of interviewing every Bioware fan.

My preferred model would be for gamers to be able to purchase, in smaller parcels, aspects of the game which they deem enjoyable, while omitting less enjoyable content.

I'd say you are underestimating the value of even one new game sale over a used one. Especially versus the benefit gained from selling one piece of DLC. If the same marketting can be applied to both sets of products (the DLC or the new copy), then the value of gaining one of one versus the other is very lopsided.

More accurately, you are misjudging the end result of providing free day 1 dlc. In your scenario of the friend letting me borrow his game, the magic offer of free day 1 dlc is not likely to produce a sale, if I'd been in doubt. I'd merely purchase the dlc (if that) or merely play without it. The potential recommendation of the friend is what's driving my actions to play the game, not a few hours of bonus content.

The problem is them that a game has to be deemed a good base game DESPITE Paid D1DLC. Meaning that games perceive the base game to be diminished through the presence of the optional D1 Paid content, not enhanced (or even a net zero effect). That may not be logical, but it does not stop it from being the case.

No, the game simply must be deemed good, period. Shale, free vs. paid, would not dictate DA:O's quality as a whole. If the game had been terrible, consumers would have dropped it like a hot potato. Likewise with any base product. Aside from the very end of the Anvil quest line, you wouldn't even know or have any reason to suspect that Shale could influence the rest of the game, likewise with Sebastian. You're overestimating the role which content gamers don't have access to plays in their perception of the product. With DA2, do you really think people would have been relieved at the end result because Bioware tossed them Sebastian for free?

Meanwhile, the exact opposite happens with free D1DLC. It is seen as the developer enhancing the base game and passing that on to thr loyal fanbase, instead of diminishing the main game to charge more for it separately. The same overall process either way, but the pricing method so overshadows the perception of the practice that it becomes two different things - Free D1DLC becomes extra content for free, while Paid D1DLC becomes parts of the base game whittled out to make more money.

Again - perception becomes reality.

I provided the logical extension to this above. If Bioware really was so worried about gamer perceptions regarding day 1 dlc, the solution would be to cut out content from the base game and advertise it as free dlc, using the game's original budget. In a game of 50 hours in length, 5 hours of content will go unnoticed, especially since Bioware games are variable in length. As you said, perceptions. Is that really the conclusion people would prefer to embrace?

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 décembre 2013 - 06:31 .

[Magdalena11]

To jump in here, I'm hoping for an awesome, content-filled game that will make me feel like I got my money's worth. While the idea of having special content for players who preorder as a prize that can be purchased later may sound cool, I would say if it's done, put it in the game. Do people really preorder just to get an extra hour or two of playtime that will add nothing to a story?

[BouncyFrag]

Magdalena11 wrote...

To jump in here, I'm hoping for an awesome, content-filled game that will make me feel like I got my money's worth. While the idea of having special content for players who preorder as a prize that can be purchased later may sound cool, I would say if it's done, put it in the game. Do people really preorder just to get an extra hour or two of playtime that will add nothing to a story?

I don't buy new games at $60 very often. I usually wait for prices to go down. If I am going to get a new game, why not pre-order and get the extra content? It doesn't cost me anything more.

[Bhaal]

BouncyFrag wrote...

Magdalena11 wrote...

To jump in here, I'm hoping for an awesome, content-filled game that will make me feel like I got my money's worth. While the idea of having special content for players who preorder as a prize that can be purchased later may sound cool, I would say if it's done, put it in the game. Do people really preorder just to get an extra hour or two of playtime that will add nothing to a story?

I don't buy new games at $60 very often. I usually wait for prices to go down. If I am going to get a new game, why not pre-order and get the extra content? It doesn't cost me anything more.

Pre-ordering a game is a risk. You're paying for a game you don't know anything about. I pre-ordered Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 and both times i regretted.

[BouncyFrag]

Adakutay wrote...

BouncyFrag wrote...

Magdalena11 wrote...

To jump in here, I'm hoping for an awesome, content-filled game that will make me feel like I got my money's worth. While the idea of having special content for players who preorder as a prize that can be purchased later may sound cool, I would say if it's done, put it in the game. Do people really preorder just to get an extra hour or two of playtime that will add nothing to a story?

I don't buy new games at $60 very often. I usually wait for prices to go down. If I am going to get a new game, why not pre-order and get the extra content? It doesn't cost me anything more.

Pre-ordering a game is a risk. You're paying for a game you don't know anything about. I pre-ordered Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 and both times i regretted.

If I'm going to put down $60 for a game I find out as much as I can about the game via gameplay preview videos along with checking out gaming sites I trust. For example, neogaf's OT threads for a given game have early impressions from gamers, some who are reviewers themselves that I've found to be reliable. 

[durasteel]

I buy my games in one of two ways: either I pre-order the Collector's Edition, or I pick up the ultimate edition off of Steam that includes all the DLC once it is down to $20. What that means is that I never even notice "day 1 DLC" since it is always included in my package price.

I'm really not seeing why people get so worked up over it.

[Fast Jimmy]

So when I go to see a movie for example, am I expected to cringe in pain every time I experience some special effect which I could have viewed in 3D? Or when I take a bite of plain pizza, should I be weeping over the lack of olives? I've said this before, but my first playthrough was without Javik and the only questions I found myself asking, due to confusion, was regarding the ending. This is where it's critical to be able to point to a sales figure and say "customers are angry about Javik so they're not buying DA:I", which is itself difficult in absence of interviewing every Bioware fan.

These are ludicrous examples because there is no analogue to D1DLC in other media. There is no other segment of the entertainment industry that sells to the entire population extra story/plot content on the first day of the product being released. Books don't have missing chapters available the day the book hits shelves. Movies don't have extra scenes available for viewers to see the very first day it hits the theaters. A musical doesn't have extra songs/scenes in a special Extended Cut the day it hits Broadway. These types of practices would be blasted as being greedy and unsavory in the extreme, but are incredibly common in the video game industry.

More accurately, you are misjudging the end result of providing free day 1 dlc. In your scenario of the friend letting me borrow his game, the magic offer of free day 1 dlc is not likely to produce a sale, if I'd been in doubt. I'd merely purchase the dlc (if that) or merely play without it. The potential recommendation of the friend is what's driving my actions to play the game, not a few hours of bonus content.

We're not concerned with what Il Divo would do, anymore than what Fast Jimmy would do.

If giving away Free D1DLC results in one more New copy, it would result in higher margins than selling five Paid D1DLCs. Coupled with the perception that gamers get something free with the former instead of being nickel and dimed with the latter, I cannot imagine why developers would risk getting burned on this...

...unless, of course, DLC has insanely huge profit margins, due to there being get little costs outside of the base game - which means they are entirely over priced and/or being ripped out of the base game development to make money. It's either a silly practice, due to engendering fan bad will for limited margins, or it is exactly what it's detractors claim it is - cutting the content from the base game by and large and charging out the nose for it.

No, the game simply must be deemed good, period. Shale, free vs. paid, would not dictate DA:O's quality as a whole. If the game had been terrible, consumers would have dropped it like a hot potato. Likewise with any base product. Aside from the very end of the Anvil quest line, you wouldn't even know or have any reason to suspect that Shale could influence the rest of the game, likewise with Sebastian. You're overestimating the role which content gamers don't have access to plays in their perception of the product. With DA2, do you really think people would have been relieved at the end result because Bioware tossed them Sebastian for free?

The Free D1DLC, versus the Paid, colors the perception and experience, it does not dictate it. Arguing that DLC for a crappy base game will likewise sell crappily is a strawman. Because the same would be true of Paid D1DLC sales... or it wouldn't be, where players paid for the D1DLC right alongside the base game, are given a bad base game experience, and then rage against the developer for ripping them off.

So... basically what a lot of people said they felt with ME3 and From Ashes.

I provided the logical extension to this above. If Bioware really was so worried about gamer perceptions regarding day 1 dlc, the solution would be to cut out content from the base game and advertise it as free dlc, using the game's original budget. In a game of 50 hours in length, 5 hours of content will go unnoticed, especially since Bioware games are variable in length. As you said, perceptions. Is that really the conclusion people would prefer to embrace?

Yes.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 décembre 2013 - 12:54 .

[LinksOcarina]

Adakutay wrote...

BouncyFrag wrote...

Magdalena11 wrote...

To jump in here, I'm hoping for an awesome, content-filled game that will make me feel like I got my money's worth. While the idea of having special content for players who preorder as a prize that can be purchased later may sound cool, I would say if it's done, put it in the game. Do people really preorder just to get an extra hour or two of playtime that will add nothing to a story?

I don't buy new games at $60 very often. I usually wait for prices to go down. If I am going to get a new game, why not pre-order and get the extra content? It doesn't cost me anything more.

Pre-ordering a game is a risk. You're paying for a game you don't know anything about. I pre-ordered Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 and both times i regretted.

Anything you do is a risk though. Pay ten bucks for a movie ticket versus ten dollars for a music CD. Or buying a car for $5,000 less but may have faulty wiring or something like that.

In terms of financial risks though, this is negligable unless you buy games regularly at new or used prices. Your mileage on the game is dependent on your own tastes and impressions made before buying it. 

Let me put it this way; you say you regretted both times you pre-orded those games. My question then is what made you pre-order them in the first place, and why did you actually regret doing so?

Also, would it matter if you pre-order a third time at all in the grand scheme of things if it is something you rarely do? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 30 décembre 2013 - 01:16 .

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Adakutay wrote...

BouncyFrag wrote...

Magdalena11 wrote...

To jump in here, I'm hoping for an awesome, content-filled game that will make me feel like I got my money's worth. While the idea of having special content for players who preorder as a prize that can be purchased later may sound cool, I would say if it's done, put it in the game. Do people really preorder just to get an extra hour or two of playtime that will add nothing to a story?

I don't buy new games at $60 very often. I usually wait for prices to go down. If I am going to get a new game, why not pre-order and get the extra content? It doesn't cost me anything more.

Pre-ordering a game is a risk. You're paying for a game you don't know anything about. I pre-ordered Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 and both times i regretted.

Anything you do is a risk though. Pay ten bucks for a movie ticket versus ten dollars for a music CD. Or buying a car for $5,000 less but may have faulty wiring or something like that.

In terms of financial risks though, this is negligable unless you buy games regularly at new or used prices. Your mileage on the game is dependent on your own tastes and impressions made before buying it. 

Let me put it this way; you say you regretted both times you pre-orded those games. My question then is what made you pre-order them in the first place, and why did you actually regret doing so?

Also, would it matter if you pre-order a third time at all in the grand scheme of things if it is something you rarely do? 

Yet the pre-ordering itself is incredibly risky, not just the $10 DLC.

You are commiting to buy the game sight unseen, without any reviews or peer feedback. If you are pre-ordering a Collector's Edition in order to get the "free" DLC that comes with it, you are paying an additional $10 on top of that, essentially pre-ordering the base game AND the DLC without any real clue if the marketing surrounding both was accurate and that you would like either/both, or if the game is a dud on all fronts. 

Pre-ordering is a risk simply because you are commiting without any real insight into what you are buying, outside of the developer's word. And when you feel the developer's word is mud, that makes it a really risky proposition.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


Yet the pre-ordering itself is incredibly risky, not just the $10 DLC.

You are commiting to buy the game sight unseen, without any reviews or peer feedback. If you are pre-ordering a Collector's Edition in order to get the "free" DLC that comes with it, you are paying an additional $10 on top of that, essentially pre-ordering the base game AND the DLC without any real clue if the marketing surrounding both was accurate and that you would like either/both, or if the game is a dud on all fronts. 

Pre-ordering is a risk simply because you are commiting without any real insight into what you are buying, outside of the developer's word. And when you feel the developer's word is mud, that makes it a really risky proposition.

Reviews and peer-feedback are inconsequential. For one, peer reviews are biased in their own right due to people always looking for a specific experience within the game. They also tend to have an agenda behind their madness, at least, the good ones do that don't amount to a two paragraph complaint on metacritic.

Other reviews are just as pointless to me, and I write them at for a game website as a side hobby. Take, for example, a game like Gone Home. It's being touted as the best thing to come out of the indie scene this year by a lot of people, but it is mostly based upon the subjectivity of the story it presents to you. It's most certainly a game, but being a story-driven adventure title, the merits of the narrative need to be discussed and analyzed with great detail. When I played it, I was simply unimpressed because it was just another teen angst, star crossed lovers storyline told in a very unique way. It is an important game, but that doesn't always translate to good.

What makes a good review is analysis of the entire product. most people don't do that, or they focus too much on hyper-details that become nitpicking and pointless to the grand scheme of what is being played. 

As for real insight into what you are pre-ordering, that one I can't answer for you. Insight on a game is indeterminable in the end anyway, since what is shown and how its shown is normally what we see, right down to demos for a game. For example, Payday 2 is a game without a lot of assets, lower budgeted from the start and has a rough edge to it, but is fun and one of the better games to come out this year. Looking at it you may argue it looks terrible, playing it you see the merits of the system, even if there are some maddening issues that cause long-term grinding to be required. 

See, I agree its all a risk. My point is its a risk that is financially moot. Ten dollars in the one example of Mass Effect 3 is nothing compared to the often  $170 dollars for pre-order editions most companies make, or the near $100 pricetag for a season pass DLC thrown on top. Sylvus the Mad said it best, were getting this stuff on the cheap for the most part. Your risk/reward theshold based on how much you pay is simply inconsequental when its that low. So ten dollars more, I can deal with that and pre-order it. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 30 décembre 2013 - 01:38 .

[wrdnshprd]

Navasha wrote...

I like Day 1 DLC, so your very opening statement is clearly false. In fact, I hope they do MORE Day 1 DLC.

I don't want to have to wait until I have already completed the game to find new DLC being released, I would prefer all the EXTRA content there on even my very first playthrough.

The only thing wrong with day 1 DLC is the ill-conceived concept put out there by people who don't want to pay a few extra bucks for a better game, that it is somehow "cut" content. I certainly don't want companies to stop producing extra content because a few "fans" don't understand the concept behind it.

it IS cut content.  if its availlable day one, IT CAN BE MADE AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL GAME.  doesnt matter if another team made it.  it can still be put in the original game install or put up as a digital download for free.  get it.  good.

sorry, but people like you are why companies can get away with ripping off their customer base.. and that is exactly what they are doing with day 1 DLC.

[Sully13]

Why bother preordering you get most of the dlc that was "Excusive su you poor retched mortals from beyond the pond will never ever ger it ever." in a month or two anyway.

[LinksOcarina]

wrdnshprd wrote...

Navasha wrote...

I like Day 1 DLC, so your very opening statement is clearly false. In fact, I hope they do MORE Day 1 DLC.

I don't want to have to wait until I have already completed the game to find new DLC being released, I would prefer all the EXTRA content there on even my very first playthrough.

The only thing wrong with day 1 DLC is the ill-conceived concept put out there by people who don't want to pay a few extra bucks for a better game, that it is somehow "cut" content. I certainly don't want companies to stop producing extra content because a few "fans" don't understand the concept behind it.

it IS cut content.  if its availlable day one, IT CAN BE MADE AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL GAME.  doesnt matter if another team made it.  it can still be put in the original game install or put up as a digital download for free.  get it.  good.

sorry, but people like you are why companies can get away with ripping off their customer base.. and that is exactly what they are doing with day 1 DLC.

Except no one is being ripped off in this case, it is dependent on your own personal beliefs of the content itself, the perception of it, if you will. Anything lost in 90% of the DLC's done out there, be it day one or 100, is stuff we don't need to experience the game proper. In the few exceptions to this rule, such as Asuras Wrath or Fallout 3, paying for changes to the given ending of the title are much more agregious offenses than a day one pack giving us a unique character and perspective on things in-game.

Perceptions do not equate reality either. True they may be stronger, but it doesn't make it a universal truth. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 30 décembre 2013 - 02:00 .

[PinkysPain]

ARTHURIUSS wrote...

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

Ehh, I don't care ... I don't resell my games any way (day 1 DLC is generally an anti-resale tactic).

Putting exclusive quest DLC in the pre-order bonus, now that I don't like (I don't mind the trinkets). If you want me to pre-order sell me on the game on the merit of your reputation (in ruins) and your sales pitch (pretty good for DAI, atrocious for ME4) and not by hard selling.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 30 décembre 2013 - 02:12 .

[wrdnshprd]

LinksOcarina wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

Navasha wrote...

I like Day 1 DLC, so your very opening statement is clearly false. In fact, I hope they do MORE Day 1 DLC.

I don't want to have to wait until I have already completed the game to find new DLC being released, I would prefer all the EXTRA content there on even my very first playthrough.

The only thing wrong with day 1 DLC is the ill-conceived concept put out there by people who don't want to pay a few extra bucks for a better game, that it is somehow "cut" content. I certainly don't want companies to stop producing extra content because a few "fans" don't understand the concept behind it.

it IS cut content.  if its availlable day one, IT CAN BE MADE AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL GAME.  doesnt matter if another team made it.  it can still be put in the original game install or put up as a digital download for free.  get it.  good.

sorry, but people like you are why companies can get away with ripping off their customer base.. and that is exactly what they are doing with day 1 DLC.

Except no one is being ripped off in this case, it is dependent on your own personal beliefs of the content itself, the perception of it, if you will.

Perceptions do not equate reality either. True they may be stronger, but it doesn't make it a universal truth. 

the company is CUTTING content from the game and charging additonal money for it.. sorry but i call that getting ripped off.

and again, no matter how you slice it.. that is EXACTLY what day 1 DLC is..  even if the content is made by a different team; if its available day one, it can still be put in as part of the install or put up as a digital download for free.

i will say though.. DLC that is put up as "day one" but given to customers free of charge as long as you buy new, is a good compromise.  especially since the devs and publishers dont get any money from a used sale.

Modifié par wrdnshprd, 30 décembre 2013 - 02:13 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Perceptions do not equate reality either. True they may be stronger, but it doesn't make it a universal truth. 

There are no universal truths. The theory of relativity is proof of that - time itself becomes a matter of perception as you reach certain speeds.

If a perception is rooted in false data, but results in changes to how others react such that many work under the assumption it is correct (such as consumers feeling they are being ripped off, businesses having to respond and prove value as if they are rippig off their customers and industry commentary talks about how it is an issue for many fans), then the perception becomes the reality.

Of course, as this perception changes, that reality can shift as well, possibly more towards what evidence actually points to, but also possibly not... the point is that if all the major player sin an issue have to operate as if a perception is real, then for all intents and purposes, it is.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 décembre 2013 - 02:31 .

[ghostzodd]

Han Shot First wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I've never had a problem with Day 1 DLC. Complaints against it quite frankly, are just fans being cheap. I've yet to see a Day 1 DLC that was necessary to complete a game. They all fall within the realm of extras, and I support the right of companies to charge extra for extras. Game developers aren't collectives of starving artists creating just for sake of creating. They are businesses driven by profit. Welcome to capitalism. Don't like it? Don't buy it.

Also, what is the price of most Day 1 DLCs? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to 15 dollars (US)? Hardly bank-breaking, and I can think of a lot of things I've wasted similar amounts of money on but got less enjoyment out of.
 
I wonder how many people who complain about Day 1 DLCs are smokers. Here is a thought: Cut down on that vile cancer-causing habit that is draining your wallet, and buy that DLC you 'can't afford.'

Yes because a good amount of people complaining about the day 1 DLC are smokers *logic*

Given that a large percentage of the population does smoke, its a safe bet that a similarly large percentage of those complaining about Day 1 DLC are smokers as well. How's that for logic?

The point is that people spend money on plenty of things they don't need. DLC is included amongst those list of things, as it isn't one of life's necessities. Most of the time it isn't even necessary to complete a video game. If however the DLC is that important to you that you *must* have it, but the price is an issue, cut expenses from somewhere else in your life. I picked on smokers because they are an extreme example. How much does a nicotine habit cost? Maybe several hundred dollars a year?

Unless you do a poll, or have charts or graphs that illustrate how many people are smokers then I shall take your logic with a grain of salt;)

[Scroll]

wrdnshprd wrote...

the company is CUTTING content from the game and charging additonal money for it.. sorry but i call that getting ripped off.

How do you know that they (BioWare!) cut content specifically for the day 1 DLC? Can you please source that. Thanks. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

wrdnshprd wrote...

the company is CUTTING content from the game and charging additonal money for it.. sorry but i call that getting ripped off.

Why?

What if they just cut the content and threw it away?  Would that be better?  Because that's the other available option.

If you don't want something, don't buy it.  You can't be ripped off by a transaction in which you don't take part.  And if you do take part, you do so voluntarily.  Why are you volunteering to be ripped off?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 décembre 2013 - 05:19 .

[AlanC9]

wrdnshprd wrote...

it IS cut content.  if its availlable day one, IT CAN BE MADE AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL GAME.  doesnt matter if another team made it.  it can still be put in the original game install or put up as a digital download for free.  get it.  good.

Yep. And when I order a hamburger from McDonalds, they have cheese sitting there on the shelf. THEY COULD GIVE ME THAT CHEESE FOR FREE!